m 


o 


WAR 

OR 

A  UNITED  WORLD 

BY 

SOTERIOS  NICHOLSON 

Author  of 

"  A  WORLD-CITY  OF  CIVILIZATION,"  Etc. 


Published  by 
THE  WASHINGTON  PUBLISHING  HOUSE 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 
1916 


Copyright  1916 

BY 

Sotekios  Nicholson 


........ 

■  ■-•.-    -it  ;■'  , 


0 


£ 


To 

James  Brown  Scott,  A.  M.,  J.  U.  D.,  LL.  D. 

A  staunch  advocate  of  peace,  a  prudent 
counsellor  and  a  loyal  friend,  this  book  is  re- 
spectfully dedicated. 


372343 


WAR 

OR 

A  UNITED  WORLD 

With  a  Review  of  its  Precursors  in  Europe 
A  Retrospect  and  Estimate 

BY 
SOTERIOS  NICHOLSON 


CHAPTERS 

PAGE 

I.  THE  GRECIAN  PENINSULA     -    -  17 

II.  THE  ITALIAN  PENINSULA       -    -  48 

III.  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE 103 

IV.  FRANCO-IBERIAN  PENINSULA    -  119 
V.  THE  BRITISH  ISLES 147 

VI.  THE  RISE  OF  RUSSIA      -    -    -    -  172 

VII.  GERMANY  AND  PRUSSIA     -    -    -  201 

VIII.  CAUSES  OF  THIS  WAR    -     -     -     -  225 

IX.  PEACE  WITH  JUSTICE     -    -    -    -  250 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Grecian    Peninsula. 

Ancient  Greece  to  Byzantine  Empire. 

Definition  of  "Greece";  Minoan  and  Myccnean  Ages;  Age  of  Ty- 
rants; Siege  of  Trey;  Dr.  Schliemann's  Excavations;  Dorian  Inva- 
sion ;  Spartan  Descendants  of  Dorians ;  First  and  Second  Messenian 
Wars;  Spartan  Leaders  in  Peloponnesus;  The  Defense  of  Argos; 
Periander  of  Corinth;  Dionysius  of  Syracuse;  Pesistratus,  a  Lover  of 
Art  and  Culture;  Replacement  of  Tyrants  by  Democracy;  Lycurgus 
and  Solo,  Fathers  of  Law ;  War  of  Thebes ;  Persian  Wars ;  Over- 
powering of  Croesus  by  Cyrus ;  Battle  of  Marathon ;  Leonidas  in 
Battle  at  Thermopylae;  Battle  at  Salamis;  Pericles  in  Power;  Third 
Messenian  War ;  Peloponnesian  Wars ;  Alcibiades ;  Defeat  of  Athen- 
ians in  Sicily  by  Spartans ;  Blockade  of  Athens  by  Lysander ;  Arta- 
xerxes ;  Xenophon ;  Agesilas,  King  of  Sparta ;  Corinthian  War ;  Peace 
of  Antalcidas;  Overthrow  of  Sparta;  Pelopidas;  Epaminondas,  Leader 
of  Thebes ;  Macedonia  of  Hellenic  Stock ;  Philip,  the  Conqueror ;  Sa- 
cred War ;  Philip's  Assassination  in  Greece ;  Alexander  The  Great  in 
Asia  Minor ;  Defeat  of  Darius  by  Alexander ;  Alexander  in  Egypt ; 
Founding  the  City  of  Alexandria ;  Alexander  in  Persia ;  Alexander's 
March  into  Babylon;  Alexander's  Arrival  in  India;  Death  of  Alex- 
ander at  32  (323  B.  C.)  ;  Succession  of  Antipater  Cratirus;  Achean 
League ;  Romans  Entrance  into  Greece ;  Battle  of  Pharsala ;  Caesar's 
Reign  in  Greece;  Byzantine  Empire  (323  A.  D.  to  1453);  Recogni- 
tion of  Christianity  by  Constantine ;  Huns  in  Europe ;  Visigoths ; 
Invasion  of  the  Empire  by  Goths;  Extinction  of  Western  Roman 
Empire ;  Justinian ;  Belissarius ;  Destruction  of  Jerusalem ;  Leo  III ; 
Moslem  Invasion ;  Greek  Domination  Over  the  Slavs ;  Alexius  Com- 
ninus ;  Crusaders ;  Turks  in  Macedonia ;  Mohammed's  Siege  of  Con- 
stantinople (1453)  ;  Constantine  XI  Last  Byzantine  Emperor. 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  Italian  Peninsula. 

Rome's  Influence;  Comparisons;  Early  Origins;  Founding  of  Rome; 
Rape  of  the  Sabines;  Tales  of  Warfare;  Horatius;  Pharsalia;  Clan 
Struggles;  Servius  Tullius;  Coriolanus;  Cincinnatus;  Reduction  of 
Veii;  Mt.  Gaurus;  Battle  of  Mt.  Vesuvius;  Second  Samnite  War; 
The  Candine  Forks;  Third  Samnite  War;  Sentinum;  Beneventum; 
Ariminum;  Army  Organization;  Military  Roads;  First  Punic  War; 
War  with  Illyrian  Pirates;  Clastidium;  Capture  of  Saguntum;  Trasu- 
menus;  Cannae;  Zama;  Conquests  in  the  East;  Magentia;  Destruction 
of  Carthage;  Destruction  of  Numantia;  The  Slav  Rebellion;  Jugur- 
thine  War;  Aurasia;  The  Raudine  Fields;  Capture  of  Bovianum; 
Marius  and  Sulla;  Sulla's  Proscriptions;  Revolt  of  Lepidus;  War  of 
Sertorius;  War  of  the  Gladiators;  Pompey  and  the  Pirates;  Second 
Mithridatic  War;  Tigranes;  Death  of  Mithridates;  Pompey's  Eastern 
Conquests;  Cataline;  Conquest  of  Gaul;  Caesar;  Death  of  Crassus; 
Murder  of  Pompey ;  Caesar's  Egyptian  Campaign ;  Asiatic  Campaign ; 
African  Campaign;  Munda;  Casear  as  a  Ruler. 

CHAPTER  III. 
The  Roman  Empire. 

The  Second  Triumvirate;  Mutina;  Death  of  Cicero;  The  Four  Sui- 
cides; Augustus;  Defeat  of  Varus;  Arminius;  His  Apotheosis;  Ti- 
berius ;  Caligula ;  Claudius ;  Nero ;  Arrogance  of  the  Army ;  Bedriacum ; 
The  Siege  of  Jerusalem ;  Vespasian  and  Titus ;  Agricola  in  Britain ; 
Christian  Persecutions;  Trojan;  Hadrian's  Opposition  to  War;  A 
"Reign  Without  Events";  Wars  with  the  Barbarians;  The  Empire  at 
Auction;  A  Military  Despotism;  A  Wall  Across  Britain;  Caraculla; 
Heligabalus;  Serverus  a  Contrast;  Rivalry  Between  Maximin  and 
Vitellius ;  Rapid  Fatality  in  Emperors ;  The  "Thirty  Tyrants" ;  Claudius 
II ;  Aurelian ;  Diocletian's  "Tetrarchy" ;  Constantine ;  Fate  of  the  Five 
Cotemporaries ;  Julian  "The  Apostate";  Protective  Policy  of  Theodo- 
sius;  Stilicho;  Alaric;  Aetius  and  Boniface;  Odoacer. 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Franco-Iberian  Peninsula. 

Rome  Under  the  Barbarians;  The  Iberians;  Alaric  and  Athauf; 
First  Sovereigns  of  Spain;  Clovis  and  the  Soldier;  Union  of  the 
Franks;  Theoderic;  Clotaire;  Fredegunde  and  Brunehilde;  Origin  of 


St.  Cloud;  The  Frankish  Empire  Under  Dagobert;  Pippin;  Charles 
Martel;  Cambrai;  Soissions;  Tours;  Boniface's  Labors;  Pippin's 
Donation;  Charlemagne;  Capture  of  Verona  and  Pavia;  Conquest  oj 
All  Italy;  Conquest  of  the  Saxons;  Wars  in  Spain;  Death  of  Row- 
land; The  Empire  and  Feudalism;  The  First  Free  Public  Schools; 
Fontanetum;  The  Norse  Invasion;  Hastings  at  Paris;  The  Split  of 
the  Empire  Into  Seven  Kingdoms;  Hugh  Capet;  Invasion  of  France 
by  Louis  III  of  Germany;  Royal  Poverty;  Tragic  Events  from  1010 
to  1453;  The  "Universal  Spider"  French  Wars  of  the  Fifteenth  Cen- 
tury; French  Religious  Wars;  French  Revolution;  Treaty  of  Pillnitz 
to  Restore  the  Bourbona;  Menin;  Valmy;  Jammappes;  The  Summer 
Massacres;  The  French  Republic;  The  "Reign  of  Terror";  Assas- 
sination and  Executions;  Dunkirk;  Hondschoote;  Napoleon  Bona- 
parte; His  Rise;  Battles  of  1797;  Marengo;  Hohenlinden;  Rupture 
of  the  Amien's  Compact;  Austerlitz;  Jena;  Peace  of  Tilsit;  Junot's 
Defeat  in  Spain;  Wagram;  Waterloo;  Later  French  Wars;  The 
Gothic  Kingdom;  Founding  of  Aragon;  Founding  of  Portugal;  Cor- 
dova; Second  City  of  Europe;  Battle  of  Las  Narvas;  Wars  of 
Charles  I ;  Philip  II,  Spain's  Loss  of  American  Possessions ;  Ferdi- 
nand III,  The  Reactionary;  Isabella  II;  War  Between  Carlists  and 
Christians;  War  with  Morocco;  King  Amadeus;  The  Republic;  Cas- 
telar;  Alfonso  XII;  The  War  of  1898;  Alfonso  XIII;  Lusitania; 
War  the  Regular  Order;  "The  Founder";  Henry  The  Navigator; 
Portugal's  Annexation  to  Spain;  Treaty  of  Lisbon  and  The  Re-estab- 
lishment of  the  Kingdom;  Yusuf  The  Centenarian;  Aly's  Holy  War; 
Effect  of  Wellington's  Successes;  Dom  Pedro;  The  Quadruple  Alli- 
ance ;  Brazil's  Influence ;  The  Rebellion  of  1910 ;  Recognition  of  Por- 
tugal as  a  Republic. 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  British  Isles. 

The  Scandinavians ;  Gormo ;  Lobrock ;  Early  Traits ;  Caesar's  In- 
vasions ;  Caractacus ;  Druidism ;  Boadicea ;  Constantine  in  York ; 
Danish  Invasions ;  Alfred ;  Edgar ;  Sweyn ;  Hastings ;  Questions  of 
Territory ;  William's  Revenge ;  Rochester  Castle ;  Henry's  "Charter 
of  Liberties";  Tinchebrai;  "Battle  of  the  Standard";  The  Plantagenets ; 
John  and  Richard;  Lincoln;  Eversham;  Edward  I;  The  "Mad  Parlia- 
ment"; Simon  de  Montfort;  Effect  of  the  Crusades;  The  "Model 
Parliament";  Wallace;  Bannockburn;  The  Hundred  Years'  War; 
Crecy;  Siege  of  Calais;  Poitiers;  Wat  Tyler;  Shrewsbury;  Harfleur; 
Agincourt;  Siege  of  Orleans;  Burning  of  Joan  of  Arc;  Jack  Cade; 
"Wars  of  the  Roses" ;  St.  Albans ;  Wakefield ;  Bosworth  Field ;  League 


of  Cambrai;  The  Holy  League;  Battle  of  the  Spurs;  Flodden;  "Field 
of  the  Cloth  of  Gold";  Capture  of  Calais;  Kingdom  of  Waldemar  II; 
The  Union  of  Calmar;  Gustavus  Vasa  King;  Freedom  of  Elizabeth's 
Reign  from  War;  The  "Armada";  The  Irish  Rebellion;  "The  Thirty 
Years'  War" ;  James  I ;  The  "Gunpowder  Plot" ;  Edgehill ;  Naseby ; 
War  with  the  Dutch;  Monmouth's  Rebellion;  Charles  II;  Sedgemoor; 
1688;  Battle  of  the  Boyne;  Brutal  Customs;  "War  of  the  Spanish 
Succession";  Marlborough;  Blenheim;  Capture  of  Gibraltar;  Ramilles ; 
Almanza;  Ondenarde;  Malplaquet;  Defeat  of  Eugene;  Sheriffmuir; 
Fontenoy;  "The  Seven  Years'  War";  The  War  of  Jenkin's  Ear;  The 
Austrian  Succession ;  The  Invasion  of  England ;  Battle  of  the  Nile ; 
Trafalgar;  Waterloo;  The  Opium  War;  The  Soudan;  The  Boer  War. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Rise  oe  Russia. 

Early  Wars;  Lipetsk;  Kalka;  Riazan;  Kolomna;  Ivan  III;  Reduc- 
tion of  Kazan;  Ivan  The  Terrible;  Demitri  the  Pretender;  Capture  of 
Azof ;  Revolt  in  Moscow ;  Defeat  of  Razine ;  Siege  of  Convent  of 
Solovetski ;  Peter  The  Great ;  Execution  of  1,000  Streltsi ;  Defeat  at 
Narva;  Founding  of  Petrograd;  Swedish  Repulse  at  Borysthenes; 
Pultowa;  Losses  of  Lewenhaupt;  War  of  Polish  Succession;  First 
Russian  Troops  in  Germany;  Alliance  of  1726;  Results  of  Lacy's  Cam- 
paign, 1736;  Reign  of  Elizabeth;  Conquest  of  Finland;  Elizabeth  and 
Frederick  The  Great;  Defeat  of  Frederick;  Entrance  of  Berlin  by 
the  Russians;  Death  of  Peter  by  Strangling;  Catherine  II;  A  Savage 
War ;  Massacre  of  Ouman ;  Partition  of  Poland ;  Defeat  of  Khan  of 
Tartars;  End  of  Turkish  Rule  in  Peninsula;  New  Swedish  Consti- 
tution; Plague  at  Moscow;  Race  War;  Beheading  of  Pougatchef; 
Corrupt  Peculation ;  Catherine's  Ukase ;  Turkish  War ;  Austrian  Defeat 
at  Teinesvar ;  Storming  of  Ismail ;  Defeat  of  Grand  Vizier  at  Matchin ; 
Second  Partition  of  Poland;  Bloody  Massacre  at  Braga;  Increase  of 
Russia's  Domain ;  Eccentric  Paul  I ;  Souvorof 's  Formulae ;  Entrance 
of  Milan  by  Souvorof ;  Trebbia ;  Defeat  at  Zurich ;  Retreat  of  Souvo- 
rof;  Mystery  of  Paul's  Death;  French  and  Russian  Treaty;  Austerlitz; 
Eylau ;  Alexander  and  Napoleon ;  Rupture  Between  Them ;  Invasion 
of  Russia ;  Napoleon's  Mistake ;  Borodino ;  Reception  at  Moscow ; 
Viasma;  Horrors  of  the  Retreat;  Settlements;  The  "Holy  Alliance"; 
Declaration  of  Independence  by  Greece;  Efforts  of  the  Balkan  States; 
Metternich's  Influence;  The  Grand  Vizier's  Amusements;  Nicholas  I; 
Persian  War;  Polish  Insurrection;  Russian  Intervention  and  Seating 
of  Francis  Joseph;  Crimean  War;  Losses. 

8 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Germany  and  Prussia. 

The  "Battle  of  Winfield";  Idea  of  the  German  Empire;  War  and 
Religion ;  The  Pastime  of  the  Gods ;  The  Goths ;  Conrad  I ;  Lenzenin ; 
Merseburg;  Lechfield ;  Otto  I  and  the  Popes;  Henry  IV's  Fate;  The 
Empire  and  the  Church ;  The  Imperial  Ghibellines  and  Papal  Guelphs ; 
Legnano;  Bouvines;  Beneventum;  The  Empire  at  Auction;  The 
Sicilian  Vespers;  The  Cities  and  The  Empire;  The  Hanseatic  League; 
Its  Despots  and  Representatives;  Kinds  of  Crusades;  Christian  Po- 
land and  Its  Pagan  Neighbors;  Teutonic  Knights  and  Holy  Wars; 
The  Hapsburgs;  Election  of  Rudolf  as  Emperor;  Ottocar's  Oath; 
Murchfield ;  Worms ;  The  Archer  of  Uri ;  The  Pope  at  Aveignon ;  Fate 
of  Henry  VII;  Muhldorf;  The  Pope's  Bull;  The  Diet  of  Reuse; 
Origin  of  "Ich  Dieu" ;  Rienzi ;  Tetrarch's  Disappointment ;  Events  of 
Charles  IV's  Reign;  The  "Black  Death";  The  Minorites;  The  Flagel- 
lants; Character  of  Wenceslaus;  Brescia;  Sempach;  Hussite  Wars; 
Deposal  of  Three  Rival  Popes ;  Rise  of  Italian  Cities ;  Turkish  Inva- 
sion; Adrianople;  The  Janissaries;  Bojazet;  Trimour;  Angora;  Cap- 
ture of  Constantinople ;  Maximilian  I ;  Capture  of  Milan ;  Duke  Ludo- 
vico ;  Career  of  Charles  V ;  Wars  with  France ;  Muhlberg ;  The  Val- 
ladolid  Commission ;  Lepanto ;  The  Catholic  League ;  The  "Thirty 
Years'  War";  Prague;  Weisloch;  Luther;  Lutsen;  Rheinfeld;  Arras; 
Nordlingen ;  Sens ;  Laningen ;  Terrible  Losses ;  Execution  of  Hun- 
garian Nobles ;  Ministers  as  Galley  Slaves ;  Repulsion  of  Turks  at 
Vienna;  The  "Shambles  of  Eperies";  Burning  of  Baden  and  Other 
Cities ;  Steinkirk ;  "Spanish  Succession"  War ;  States  in  Conflict ;  The 
Hohenzollerns ;  Definition  of  Hohenzollerns ;  "The  Sandbox  of  the 
Holy  Roman  Empire" ;  The  Slav  Population  of  the  Roman  Empire ; 
"The  Great  Elector";  Attention  to  His  Army;  Frederick  III;  Fred- 
erick William's  Frugality;  Frederick  The  Great;  Heine's  Quatrain; 
Accession  of  Territory ;  Bismarck ;  Result  of  Victory  Over  France. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
Causes  of  This  War. 

Expansion  of  a  State ;  Weakening  of  a  State ;  Analysis  of  Causes ; 
The  Franco-German  Rivalry;  Alsace-Lorraine;  Beginning  of  Bad 
Feeling;  Dictation  of  Terms  by  Bismarck;  Increase  of  French  Army; 
German  Militarism;  German  Policy;  Franco-Russian  Alliance;  Anglo- 
German  Rivalry;  Colonial  Expansion;  Prevention  of  German  Expan- 


sion  by  British;  Germany's  Success  in  Expansion;  Africa;  Camer- 
bons,  New  Guinea;  Kiao-Chau;  Germany  and  England;  Germany  and 
Turkey;  Rivalry  of  Markets;  Enlargement  of  Navies;  Slav-Teuton 
Rivalry;  Beginning  of  Cold  German  Feeling  Toward  Russia;  Austro- 
German  Alliance;  Effect  of  Balkan  Confederation;  Dissolution  of 
Balkan  League;  The  Cause;  German  Aggressiveness;  German  Popula- 
tion; German  World-Policy;  Militarism  of  Germany;  German  Philoso- 
phers; The  Oriental  Question;  Turkey;  Serbia;  Bulgaria;  Montenegro; 
Greece;  Cause  of  Greco-Turkish  War;  Italian-Turkish  War;  Balkan 
Wars;  The  Cause;  Carnegie  Commission;  Battle  of  Sarantaporon ; 
King  Constantine  in  Salonica;  Fall  of  Yanina;  Bulgarian  Successes; 
Servian  Victories ;  Siege  of  Montenegro ;  Scutari ;  The  London  Treaty ; 
Second  Balkan  War,  and  the  Cause;  Defeat  of  Bulgars  by  Greeks  and 
Serbians;  The  Bucharest  Treaty;  Connection  of  the  Balkan  Wars 
with  the  European  War,  and  the  Cause;  Failure  of  Russian  Diplomacy; 
Triple  Alliance;  Triple  Entente;  Effect  on  Balkans;  Denunciation 
of  Treaty  by  Italy;  Immediate  Causes  of  This  War;  The  Assassina- 
tion of  the  Austrian  Heir;  The  Ultimatum  of  Austria;  General  Con- 
cern of  the  European  Powers;  Proposals  of  Sir  Edward  Grey;  Mo- 
bilization of  the  Great  Powers;  Illumination  of  the  Spark  of  Warfare. 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Peace  with  Justice. 

The  Goblet  of  War ;  Claimant  of  Justice  in  War ;  Necessity  of  War ; 
Nature  in  Evolution  and  Suggestions;  Theory  of  War;  Man  and 
Nature ;  Man  Against  Nature ;  Competitive  Struggle  Desirable ;  Mutual 
Struggle  Unnecessary  in  Competition;  The  Fittest  to  Nature;  Goal 
and  Prize;  Environment  and  Nature;  Warfare  Competition  Uncalled 
For;  Warfare  Against  Co-operation;  A  Destructive  Element;  Unfair 
Test  of  Worth;  Stronger  Unnecessarily  the  Best;  War  Undesirable; 
Warfare  Unnatural;  Co-operation  Natural;  Human  Development; 
Fellow-Man,  a  Productive  Agent;  Conquest  of  Nature  Through  Co- 
operation; Lack  of  Co-operation  Between  Nations;  National  Egotism 
as  Patriotism;  Co-operation  of  States  in  Production;  Carnegie's  Fed- 
eration; Analysis  of  Union  of  States;  Bond  of  Legal  Machinery; 
Voluntary  Adjustment;  Freedom  of  Internal  Affairs;  Action  in  Uni- 
son; "A  United  World";  German  System  of  Government;  The  Press; 
The  Unbelievers  of  State;  Attack  on  Diplomacy;  On  Governments; 
On  State  and  Individual;  On  State  and  State;  Agency  Undesirable 
When  Injurious  to  Humanity;  Organization  with  Freedom  in  Modera- 
tion ;  Necessity  of  Proper  Enforcement  of  Organization ;  Spiritual  and 

10 


Material  Solidarity;  War,  Exception  Rather  Than  the  Rule;  Differ- 
ence of  Issue  of  Individual  and  State;  State  and  Individual;  Difference 
in  Interest  Only;  Necessity  of  Co-operation  by  State  and  Individual; 
Individuals  as  Citizens;  Moral  Consideration  Obligatory  on  State; 
State  as  a  Reality;  Freedom  of  State  from  Cause;  Encouragement  of 
Individual  Liberty  by  States ;  State  in  Favor  of  Its  Member  and  Other 
States;  States  as  Units  of  Federation;  State  a  Nationality;  Federation 
Powerless  Over  Internal  State  Affairs;  Union  Against  Domination; 
Organization  in  Equal  Rights  for  All  Nations;  Difference  of  Cosmo- 
politanisms; Nationalism  Proper;  Unity;  Variety;  Loyalty;  Solidarity; 
Conclusion  of  Cosmopolitanism;  Nationality;  Prevention  of  War  by 
Federation;  The  Machinery  of  Federation;  A  Legislative  Assembly; 
A  Judicial  Tribunal ;  An  Executive  Body ;  An  International  Character ; 
Creation  of  International  Code;  A  Federal  Army  and  Navy;  Elimina- 
tion of  Arms  by  the  State;  The  Judgment  of  the  Federal  Tribunal; 
Enforcement ;  Economic  Pressure ;  Armed  Force ;  Time  of  Action ; 
The  Argument  of  Extreme  Pacificists;  The  Answer;  Bryan,  Taft  and 
Roosevelt;  An  Indirect  Proceedure;  Peace  with  Justice;  Mental  Pro- 
cess; Positive  and  Negative  Measures;  Bryan's  Proposal;  Committees 
of  Reconciliation;  Complete  Disarmament;  Operation  of  Each  Meas- 
ure and  Its  Answer;  The  Hague  Court  of  Arbitration;  Carnegie's 
"The  League  of  Peace";  Roosevelt's  Proposal;  Extent  of  Its  Value; 
Limitations  of  Decisions  by  Court;  Freedom  of  National  Affairs  from 
Court's  Jurisdiction ;  Honor  of  a  State ;  President  Wilson  on  the 
Question  of  Honor;  Nationalities  Over  Other  Nationalities;  The  So- 
lution ;  Monroe  Doctrine ;  Its  Dangers ;  A  United  States  of  the  World ; 
Educational  Movement;  Public  Opinion;  Education  of  Children  in 
International  Principles  and  Sympathy;  International  Trade  and  Com- 
merce; Church  Work  for  Peace  and  Justice;  Officialdom  and  Di- 
plomacy; Conclusion. 


11 


INDEX  TO  PICTURES 


PAGE 

ALEXANDER  THE  GREAT 32 

CAESAR       -    - - 94 

KING  VICTOR  EMMANUEL  OF  ITALY    -    -  102 

PRESIDENT  POINCARE  OF  FRANCE       -    -  118 

NAPOLEON  BONAPARTE 132 

KING  GEORGE  V  OF  ENGLAND 146 

CZAR  NICHOLAS  OF  RUSSIA 172 

FRANZ  JOSEPH,  EMPEROR  OF  AUSTRIA    -  200 

KAISER  WILHELM,  EMPEROR  OF  GERMANY  224 

KING  PETER  OF  SERBIA 238 

KING  CONSTANTINE  XII  OF  GREECE     -    -  240 

KING  FERDINAND  OF  ROUMANIA       -    -    -  244 

KING  ALBERT  OF  BELGIUM 248 

ANDREW  CARNEGIE,  "THE  PEACE  MAN"  -  270 
WOODROW  WILSON,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE 

UNITED  STATES 314 

12 


PREFACE. 

Confronted  with  the  awful  spectacle  of  the  European  con- 
tinent in  the  convulsions  of  war,  involving  that  portion  of  the 
habitation  of  man  which  has  made  the  chief  contribution  to 
civilization  and  progress,  no  person,  however  neutral  in  polit- 
ical coloring,  can  fail  to  occupy  his  mind  intensely  with  the 
subject  of  war.  In  some  sense,  war  seems  to  have  been,  from 
of  old,  a  very  important  occupation  of  man;  to  glance  over 
the  history  of  mankind  is  to  go  through  pages  and  pages  of 
accounts  of  battles,  defeats  and  victories,  conclusions  of  peace 
and  of  alliances,  and  again  wars.  Now,  we  would  naturally 
like  to  understand  the  meaning  of  this  immensely  prevalent 
phenomenon,  to  study  it  in  its  origins  and  effects,  so  as  to 
learn  how  to  combat  it.  An  ill  must  be  studied  scientifically, 
through  observation,  analysis,  and  inductive  and  deductive 
manipulation,  before  it  can  be  treated  in  practical  fashion. 
In  the  end  of  such  a  scientific  study  of  war,  this  book  claims 
to  be  a  modest  contribution,  on  the  one  hand,  by  supplying  a 
history  of  wars  on  the  European  Continent,  and  thus  fur- 
nishing a  background  for  observing  the  phenomenon  of 
war,  and  on  the  other  hand,  by  undertaking  a  general  dis- 
cussion of  war,  which  takes  its  start  on  the  observations,  and 
connects  the  phenomenon  of  war  with  the  topic  of  the  wel- 
fare of  humanity,  and  with  the  course  of  the  natural  laws  of 
universal  sway.    We  have  conveniently  grouped  the  various 

13 


European  countries  under  six  headings  of  war  centers,  and 
our  historic  section  takes  the  form  of  a  resume  of  the  mil- 
itary developments  in  each  of  these  centers.  As  it  is  impos- 
sible to  dissociate  the  military  history  of  a  people  from  its 
political  and  general  developments — instead  of  presenting 
the  series  of  wars  as  detached  fragments  to  be  studied  in 
abstract  isolation — we  have  preferred  to  traverse  the  cur- 
rents of  war  from  within  the  ocean  of  the  national  history 
of  the  peoples,  and  to  observe  war  upon  the  background  of 
the  orderly  evolution  of  the  general  fortunes  of  the  portion 
of  mankind  under  consideration. 

The  resume  will  show,  we  hope,  how  very  often  wars  have 
been  waged  for  no  valid  reason  whatever,  but  have  origin- 
ated from  the  jealousy  of  kings  and  other  rulers,  from  quar- 
rels as  to  inheritance,  and  from  insignificant  misunderstand- 
ings; how  the  waging  of  warfare  on  many  occasions  has 
been  but  a  game,  as  it  were,  in  which  the  nations  have  par- 
ticipated and  in  which  they  sometimes  lost  and  sometimes 
won,  but  from  which  they  have  invariably  suffered,  and  how 
enormous  has  been  the  total  of  humanity  sacrificed  pitilessly 
on  the  numerous  altars  of  Mars ;  how  often  wars  have  been 
internal — in  other  words,  civil  wars — resulting  in  the  de- 
struction of  the  vital  energies  of  the  nation  or  state  itself; 
and  finally,  we  hope,  our  resume  will  give  the  correct  impres- 
sion that  all  war  is,  after  all,  civil  war  in  that  it  entails  the 
rending  by  humanity  of  its  own  garments  of  self -preserva- 
tive armor  and  the  crushing  within  itself  of  its  own  vitality. 

But,  of  course,  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand, 
and  humanity  is  consequently  called  upon  to  make  some  de- 
cision upon  the  matter  both  in  general  and  in  particular. 
Thus,  in  our  discussion,  we  join  the  topic  of  war  with  the 
topic  of  the  positive  good  of  mankind,  and  from  this  view- 

14 


point,  we  raise  on  the  one  hand  the  theoretical  questions  as  to 
the  nature  of  the  best  constitution  for  the  sphere  of  the  mu- 
tual relationship  of  men  and  of  groups  of  men  and  as  to 
whether  the  waging  of  warfare  is  implied  by  this  constitu- 
tion, and  on  the  other,  the  practical  question  as  to  the  realiza- 
tion of  this  constitution  and — in  so  far  as  the  plan  provides 
against  war — of  the  discovery  of  the  means  which  will  con- 
trol, and,  if  possible,  put  an  end  to  war. 

Such  are  the  considerations  which  we  respectfully  offer 
to  our  readers  with  the  intention  and  desire  of  contributing 
our  own  share  in  the  process  of  the  clarification  of  the  is- 
sues and  of  the  ultimate  settlement  of  the  problems  raised 
by  war. 

SOTERIOS   NlCHOIvSON. 


15 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  GRECIAN  PENINSULA. 

Ancient  Greece  and  Byzantine  Empire. 

It  is  difficult,  perhaps  impossible,  to  give  a  history  of 
events  in  Greece  arranged  in  single  chronological  order,  be- 
cause from  the  point  of  view  of  government,  the  term 
"Greece"  is  not  a  singular  but  a  collective  name.  The  terri- 
tory is  divided  into  many  parts  by  natural  boundaries,  and 
an  accurate  historian  of  Greece  must  subdivide  his  account 
into  at  least  a  hundred  distinct  chronicles  of  as  many  Gre- 
cian states.  In  such  a  sketch  as  the  present  claims  to  be,  we 
need  not  enter  into  such  detail;  all  the  same,  we  will  be 
obliged  to  break  the  temporal  series  at  a  number  of  points, 
and  to  some  extent,  give  the  history  of  the  different  states 
separately.  Another  point  worth  mentioning  is  that  a  his- 
tory of  Ancient  Greece  must  include  events  which  took  place 
not  only  on  the  Grecian  peninsula,  at  the  foot  of  the  Balkans, 
but  at  Sicily,  the  coast  of  Asia  Minor,  the  islands,  Mace- 
donia and  Epirus  as  well.  Indeed,  in  a  very  true  sense,  the 
Ionians  on  the  coast  of  Asia  Minor  have  been  at  times  better 
Greeks  than  the  Athenians. 


18  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORLD 

The  oldest  elements  in  ancient  Greek  life  that  we  know 
are  the  Minoan  and  Mycenean  civilizations.  Then  comes  the 
Homeric  Age,  followed  by  the  Dorian  Invasion  and  its  wide- 
spread influence.  Later  we  have  the  age  of  the  tyrants 
(about  650-500  B.  C),  which  is  in  turn  succeeded  by  the 
epoch  of  the  maturity  of  the  Greeks  as  well  as  of  their  de- 
cline, embracing  the  Persian  and  the  Peloponnesian  Wars, 
and  ending  with  the  conquest  of  Philip  (480-338).  Lastly, 
we  have  the  age  beginning  with  the  career  of  Alexander  and 
ending  with  the  Roman  Conquest  (336-146).  About  the 
Minoan  and  Mycenean  civilizations  we  know  very  little.  No 
written  account  of  the  events  has  come  to  us,  and  all  our 
information  is  derived  from  the  discovery  of  antiquities 
through  excavations.  The  Mycenean  Age  probably  lasted 
between  1600  and  1200  B.  C,  but  the  Minoan  Age  must  have 
been  of  longer  stretch,  going  as  far  back  as  2500  B.  C.  and 
reaching  until  the  decline  of  the  Mycenean  Age.  As  to  the 
epoch  that  followed  the  conclusion  of  these  two  ages,  for  a 
number  of  centuries,  we  have  no  historical  material,  but 
a  good  deal  has  come  down  to  us  in  the  form  of  legends 
and  traditions.  Thus,  we  have  heard  of  the  Argonautic 
Expedition  led  by  Jason,  who,  accompanied  by  fifty  other 
heroes,  sailed  on  board  the  Argo  in  search  of  the  golden 
fleece,  in  the  direction  of  the  Eastern  shores  of  the  Black  Sea. 
Then,  we  have  the  story  of  the  Seven  against  Thebes  accord- 
ing to  which  Adrastus,  the  king  of  Argos,  makes  war  upon 
Thebes,  aided  by  five  military  leaders  and  by  Polynices,  the 
son  of  CEdipus,  a  former  king  of  Thebes,  and  defeats  him. 

Without  doubt,  the  most  important  of  these  legends  is  the 
story  of  the  Siege  of  Troy,  made  famous  by  the  poetic  genius 
of  Homer.  Troy  is  represented  as  a  strong  state,  Greek  in 
character,  and  occupying  territory  in  Asia  Minor,  south  of 
the  Hellespont.    The  various  leaders  and  heroes  of  Greece, 


THE    GRECIAN    PENINSULA  19 

headed  by  Agamemnon,  king  of  Mycene,  besiege  Troy  in 
order  to  avenge  the  wrong  inflicted  upon  Menelaus,  one  of 
their  number,  by  Paris,  son  of  Periam,  king  of  Troy,  who 
seduced  and  bore  away  with  him  the  wife  of  Menelaus, 
Helen,  to  his  father's  city.  The  siege  is  reported  to  have 
lasted  ten  years  (1894-1884)  and  to  have  occupied  to  an 
extreme  the  attention  of  the  Olympian  Gods.  Achilles  was 
the  strongest  among  the  Achaeans,  but  he  withdrew  from 
active  service,  when  Agamemnon  took  away  from  him  his 
fair  prize — a  maiden  girl.  After  an  absence  of  many  years, 
he  returned  to  active  participation  in  the  fray.  In  order  to 
avenge  the  death  of  his  friend  Patroclus,  killed  by  Hector, 
Achilles  slew  Hector,  but  was  himself  killed  later.  The  city 
of  Troy  fell  at  last  through  a  ruse  of  Odysseus,  the  wily,  and 
was  given  over  to  plunder  and  loot.  The  city  was  burned, 
its  men  were  killed  and  its  women  were  made  the  slaves  of 
the  conquerors. 

Though  unquestionably  this  account  is  traditional,  one 
cannot  help  thinking  that  it  contains  a  germ  of  truth — so 
widely  was  it  believed  by  the  Greeks  themselves.  Recent 
excavations  by  Dr.  Schliemann  in  the  Troad  made  this  view 
credible  owing  to  the  fact  that  they  have  disclosed  the  ruins 
of  a  large  city,  in  the  old  site  of  Ilion. 

The  next  movement  of  importance  is  the  Dorian  Invasion 
or  the  Return  of  the  Heraclidae.  Homer  represents  mon- 
archy to  be  the  form  of  government  during  the  age  whose 
accounts  he  gives  in  his  poems,  and  yet  the  historic  age  of 
Greece  (beginning  with  the  eighth  century  B.  C.)  dawns 
with  oligarchy  established  in  the  various  states.  To  explain 
the  change  we  must  take  account  of  the  Dorian  Invasion, 
which  is  supposed  to  have  taken  place  toward  the  end  of  the 
twelfth  century  B.  C.  According  to  tradition,  the  descend- 
ants of  Heracles,  the  great  hero,  who  had  been  previously 


20  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORLD 

exiled  from  Peloponnesus,  returned  at  last  at  the  head  of  the 
Dorians  from  Thessaly,  and  succeeded  in  conquering  most 
of  the  territory  in  Peloponnesus.  Now,  we  cannot  believe 
that  the  conquest  was  effected  by  so  small  a  number  of  people 
or  in  such  a  short  interval  as  tradition  chronicles.  Un- 
doubtedly the  movement  was  very  wide,  and  may  have  taken 
centuries  before  settling  down.  At  any  rate,  the  Dorian 
migration  must  have  influenced  the  character  and  culture  of 
the  people  to  a  very  large  extent,  involving,  as  it  does,  the 
substitution  of  a  rude  and  hardy  civilization  for  more  refined 
customs  and  manners. 

The  Spartans  were  the  most  conspicuous  descendants  of 
the  Dorians.  According  to  legend,  the  prosperity  of  Sparta 
was  secured  by  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  invented  by 
the  great  law-giver,  Lycurgus.  On  the  whole,  the  latter  is 
represented  to  have  regarded  frugality,  simplicity  and  the 
military  virtues  as  the  foundation  stones  of  a  state's  life,  and 
upon  them  did  the  Spartans  base  their  growth  and  the  fabric 
of  their  communal  activity.  After  the  state  had  been  re- 
formed through  the  efforts  of  Xycurgus,  it  prospered,  be- 
came aggressive,  and  thirsted  for  conquest.  In  a  short  time 
it  brought  under  subjection  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  La- 
conian  province,  such  as  had  not  come,  as  yet,  under  the 
influence  of  the  Dorian  migration.  Then,  owing  to  some 
border  troubles,  the  Spartans  fell  upon  the  Messenians  and 
waged  against  them  what  are  known  as  the  first  and  second 
Messenian  Wars  (743-723  and  645-631).  During  the  first 
of  these  two,  the  Messenians,  led  by  an  able  ruler,  their  king, 
Aristodemus,  offered  stout  resistance  to  the  Spartans.  After 
continued  resistance,  the  Messenians  had  to  yield  and  were 
reduced  to  vassalage,  some  of  them  fleeing  to  other  towns. 
Again,  after  some  years,  the  Messenians  took  up  arms  and 
rose  in  revolt,  taking  advantage  of  difficulties  and  reverses 


THE   GRECIAN    PENINSULA  21 

of  the  Spartans.  Both  the  Messenians  and  the  Spartans 
secured  allies  for  themselves,  respectively,  from  among  the 
neighboring  states;  the  former  fought  valiantly,  but  finally 
they  were  forced  to  yield ;  the  uprising  was  crushed  and  the 
Messenians  were  reduced  to  the  condition  of  the  Helots. 
The  class  of  Helots,  it  may  be  explained,  contained  the  slaves 
of  the  Spartan  people,  recruited  from  the  subject  population 
of  Sparta. 

Thus,  Sparta  had  secured  supremacy  and  her  leadership 
was  recognized  by  practically  all  the  states  in  Peloponnesus. 
But  Argos  held  out,  and  therefore  Argos  had  to  be  con- 
quered. The  town  of  Tegea  surrendered  at  about  560  B.  C, 
but  the  city  of  Argos  resisted  the  encroachments  of  Sparta 
for  a  long  time.  At  last,  Cleomenes,  the  Spartan  king,  de- 
feated the  Argives  decisively  and  set  fire  to  the  wood  into 
which  they  had  fled  after  the  battle,  thus  destroying  the 
larger  part  of  the  army. 

In  the  meantime  the  age  of  tyrants  had  begun  in  Greece. 
Tyrant  was  called  any  ruler  who  had  gained  power  through 
unconstitutional  means,  the  term  having  no  reference  to  his 
own  inherent  virtues  or  capacity.  Periander  of  Corinth  was 
a  famous  tyrant ;  under  his  rule  Corinth  attained  great  pros- 
perity. Dionysius  of  Syracuse  is  another  well-known  tyrant. 
Pesistratus  in  Athens  was  a  liberal  patron  of  art  and  cul- 
ture. However  good  the  tyrants  may  often  have  been,  they 
constituted  an  irregular  element  in  the  life  of  the  Greeks, 
who  were  a  pre-eminently  freedom-loving  people.  Gradually 
the  tyrants  were  overthrown  one  by  one,  and  democracy  re- 
placed the  rule  of  the  tyrants. 

Before  we  proceed  further,  we  may  mention  that  the  most 
characteristic  element  in  the  government  of  the  Greeks  was 
the  fact  that  the  states  were  organized  on  the  basis  of  cities. 
The  city  was  the  unit,  each  city  forming  a  self-governing, 


22  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

independent  community.  Owing  to  the  consequently  small 
size  of  the  population  of  each  state,  democracy  in  govern- 
ment could  be  carried  out  to  perfection ;  government  did  not 
need  to  be  representative,  for  each  citizen  could  be  present 
and  partake  in  the  deliberations  of  the  Boule.  This  extreme 
individualism  of  the  Greeks  was  one  of  the  chief  causes  of 
their  unsurpassed  excellence  in  almost  all  forms  of  culture, 
but  in  preventing  their  union  into  a  single  nation,  it  paved 
the  way  to  their  decline,  through  defeat,  by  more  closely 
organized  and,  hence,  from  a  military  point  of  view,  stronger 
races.  In  fact,  there  were  continual  jealousies  among  the 
city-states,  and  the  federations  which  they  formed  were 
never  of  a  lasting  character. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  Athens.  This  city  appears  in  the  clouds 
of  tradition,  in  the  seventh  century  B.  C,  as  governed  by  an 
oligarchy.  In  more  early  times  she  was  under  the  rule  of 
kings,  most  famous  of  whom  were  Theseus  and  Codrus. 
Solo,  in  Athenian  history,  plays  the  role  which  Lycurgus 
filled  in  Spartan  history.  Solo  effected  both  economic  and 
constitutional  reforms  in  Athens  and  enacted  other  special 
laws,  and  then  left  the  city.  Upon  his  return  he  found  that 
his  nephew,  Pesistratus,  was  the  leader  of  a  revolutionary 
faction.  Pesistratus  succeeded  in  becoming  a  tyrant  and 
trampling  down  the  liberties  of  the  city.  Twice  he  was  ex- 
pelled and  twice  he  returned,  dying  at  527  B.  C.  Of  his  two 
sons  who  succeeded  him,  the  one  was  assassinated,  but  the 
other  continued  in  power  for  some  time  until  he  was  at  last 
forced  to  leave  the  city.  Thus  the  rule  of  the  tyrants  was 
terminated  in  Athens  (510  B.  C).  In  the  meantime,  under 
the  leadership  of  Cleisthenes,  the  Athenians  became  more 
and  more  democratic,  thus  arousing  the  enmity  of  the  oli- 
garchic party  within  and  the  opposition  of  Sparta  from 
without.    The  Spartans  started  an  expedition  against  Ath- 


THE   GRECIAN    PENINSULA  23 

ens,  but  the  movement  proved  abortive  and  the  invading 
army  dissolved.  But  the  Athenians  were  indignant  and 
made  war  against  Thebes,  which  had  participated  in  the 
movement,  and,  crossing  the  channel,  captured  Chalkis. 

We  will  now  turn  to  the  Persian  wars  which  constitute  a 
marked  and  critical  period  for  the  history  not  only  of  Greece 
but  of  the  whole  world.  By  stemming  the  tide  of  the  Per- 
sian and  Asiatic  invasions  in  general,  Greece  saved  civiliza- 
tion and  culture  for  the  western  world  and  secured  its  final 
predominance.  The  initial  event  in  this  movement  is  the 
subjugation  by  Croesus,  king  of  Lydia,  an  Asiatic  power,  of 
the  Grecian  colonies  on  the  coast  of  Asia  Minor.  Croesus, 
in  his  turn,  was  overpowered  by  Cyrus,  ruler  of  the  Per- 
sians (546  B.  C),  and  the  Greek  cities  in  Asia  were  con- 
quered one  by  one  by  the  generals  of  the  latter.  Later, 
Darius  effected  the  subjugation  of  the  Thracians  and  of  a 
majority  of  the  Panonians.  In  499,  the  Ionian-Greek  in- 
habitants of  the  Asiatic  coast  towns  revolted  against  the 
Persians,  and  the  Athenians  lent  them  assistance,  together 
with  the  Eretrians,  and  sacked  the  city  of  Sardis.  The 
insurrection  spread,  but  Darius  at  once  took  up  arms  and 
crushed  the  rebellion.  The  island  of  Miletus,  left  in  the 
lurch  by  its  allies,  was  conquered  after  a  siege  of  three  years 
(494  B.  C.)  and  was  given  over  to  plunder.  After  subjuga- 
ting Ionia,  Darius  decided  to  take  revenge  upon  the  Grecian 
states  which  had  presumed  to  aid  the  Ionians  in  their  sedi- 
tion ;  he  equipped  a  fleet  and  sent  it  to  fight  the  Greeks,  under 
the  command  of  Mardonius,  his  son-in-law.  But  the  Thra- 
cians defeated  the  Persian  land-forces,  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  fleet  was  wrecked  by  a  violent  storm.  But  Darius 
was  not  dismayed ;  he  equipped  another  expedition  and  pro- 
ceeded to  punish  the  Greeks.  Eretria  was  taken  and  burned 
and  thereupon  the  Persian  army  crossed  over  to  Attica  and 


24  WAR  OR  A   UNITED    WORLD 

landed  on  Marathon.  In  the  meantime,  the  Athenians  had 
marched  on  Marathon,  where  they  had  encamped  and  where 
they  were  reinforced  by  the  Plataeans.  Miltiades  was  ap- 
pointed supreme  general  and  the  Athenians,  without  losing 
time,  gave  battle  to  the  Persians.  The  Greeks  ran  upon  the 
foe  and  routed  the  two  wings  of  his  army ;  then  they  closed 
upon  his  center  and  completed  the  defeat  of  the  Persians  by 
putting  the  whole  army  to  flight  (490  B.  C.) .  The  battle  of 
Marathon  has  been  regarded  throughout  history  as  the  most 
decisive  battle  of  all  and  it  bears  witness  to  the  immense 
valor  of  the  Greeks,  who,  though  greatly  outnumbered  by 
the  Persians,  succeeded  in  inflicting  upon  them  a  severe 
defeat.  The  Persians  decided  thereupon  to  bear  down  upon 
Athens,  but  finding  themselves  anticipated  by  Miltiades,  re- 
turned to  the  Ionian  shores.  At  Athens,  Themistocles,  a 
very  wise  statesman,  realized  that  the  dangers  of  renewed 
Persian  invasions  had  not  passed,  and  he  proceeded  to  de- 
velop a  very  strong  navy  for  the  Athenians. 

Darius  died,  while  making  preparations  for  another  expe- 
dition against  the  Greeks,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  son 
Xerxes,  who  resolved  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  his  father. 
The  Hellespont  was  spanned  by  a  bridge  and  the  isthmus  at 
Mount  Athos  was  cut  by  a  canal.  The  Greeks  got  wind  of 
these  preparations  and  assembled  together  in  order  to  con- 
sider the  best  means  of  withstanding  the  invader.  Owing  to 
jealousies,  not  all  of  them  united;  nevertheless,  they  decided 
to  make  a  stand.  The  Persians  crossed  the  Hellespont  in  the 
spring  of  480  B.  C,  and  passed  over  into  Thessaly,  from 
which,  in  order  to  cross  down  to  Central  Greece,  they  had 
to  proceed  through  a  narrow  pass,  called  Thermopylae, 
where  Leonidas,  with  three  hundred  Spartans,  and  six  thou- 
sand other  allies,  had  been  stationed  to  prevent  the  forcing 
of  the  passage.    After  giving  effective  resistance  to  the  Per- 


THE   GRECIAN    PENINSULA  25 

sian  army,  the  Greeks  had  to  yield  owing  to  an  act  of  treach- 
ery by  a  native  Greek  who  led  the  Persians  over  the  moun- 
tains and  thus  caused  the  Greek  army  to  be  caught  in  the 
rear.  The  allies  were  given  time  to  flee,  but  Leonidas  with 
his  three  hundred  Spartans,  together  with  seven  hundred 
Thesbians,  refused  to  retreat  and  died  fighting  valiantly  and 
upholding  his  country's  honor.  Upon  being  informed  of 
the  loss  of  the  pass  of  Thermopylae,  the  Greek  fleet  which 
had  been  offering  resistance  at  Artemisium  withdrew  to  the 
gulf  of  Salamis  and  Xerxes  followed  it  there.  Battle  was 
given,  and  the  Persian  fleet  was  destroyed.  Thereupon 
Xerxes  returned  home,  leaving  Mardonius  with  three  hun- 
dred thousand  men  to  continue  the  war.  The  next  year 
(479  B.  C.)  Mardonius  crossed  into  Beotia,  where  the 
Greeks,  about  110,000  strong,  met  him  at  Platea,  and, 
chiefly  owing  to  the  valor  of  the  Lacedaemonians,  put  his 
army  to  rout.  On  the  same  day,  the  Persian  naval  forces, 
discouraged  by  their  previous  reverses,  easily  yielded  to  the 
attacks  of  the  Greek  fleet  and  fled,  their  ships  being  later 
put  to  fire  and  burned. 

Now,  since  the  victory  over  the  Persians  had  been  due 
chiefly  to  the  initiative  and  valor  of  the  Athenians  working 
in  the  cause  of  all  Hellas,  Athens  was  duly  recognized  by 
the  rest  as  the  leader  of  all  the  Greek  states.  The  city, 
which  had  been  burned  by  the  Persians  when  the  Athenian 
fleet  had  withdrawn  to  Salamis,  was  rebuilt  and  strong  walls 
erected  around  her.  At  the  same  time,  Athens  recognized 
that  her  power  lay  on  the  sea  and  proceeded  to  strengthen 
her  navy;  in  477  B.  C.  the  confederacy  of  Delos  was  formed 
under  the  supremacy  of  Athens,  embracing  the  Ionian  states, 
the  islands  of  the  Aegean  and  some  of  the  states  in  Central 
Greece.  But  Athens  was  too  arrogant;  she  converted  the 
federation  into  an  empire  and  reduced  the  confederates  to 


26  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORIvD 

tributaries.  Athens  continued  to  grow  until,  at  the  age  of 
Pericles  (459-431  B.  C),  she  reached  the  zenith  of  her 
power.  Pericles  pursued  the  naval  policies  of  his  predeces- 
sors and  was  instrumental  in  the  building  of  the  Long  Walls 
which  united  Athens  with  Piraeus  and  Phaleron.  In  the 
meantime  Sparta  had  been  busy  re-establishing  her  su- 
premacy in  Peloponnesus.  In  465  B.  C.  the  Helots  revolted 
and  were  joined  by  the  Messenians  in  their  attempt  to  crush 
the  power  of  Sparta ;  the  Lacedemonians  had  a  difficult  time, 
indeed,  in  putting  down  the  revolt,  which  came  to  be  called 
the  Third  Messenian  War. 

Gradually  there  sprang  up  a  keen  rivalry  between  Sparta 
and  Athens.  Athens  augmented  her  power  by  forming  an 
alliance  with  Argos  and  Megara,  subjugating  the  Aeginetans 
and  reducing  all  the  Boeotian  towns,  except  Thebes.  But  in 
446  B.  C.  the  Boeotians  succeeded  in  freeing  themselves 
from  the  Athenian  yoke,  and  after  suffering  other  reverses, 
as  well,  Athens  concluded  a  thirty  years'  truce  (445  B.  C.) 
with  Sparta  and  her  allies,  by  the  provisions  of  which  she 
agreed  to  forego  all  her  possessions  in  Peloponnesus  and  to 
allow  the  inclusion  of  Megara  into  the  system  of  alliance 
with  Sparta. 

And  now  we  approach  the  period  of  the  Peloponnesian 
Wars  which  resulted  in  the  loss  by  Athens  of  her  supremacy, 
and  even  of  her  power.  Trouble  and  quarrels  having  arisen 
between  Corinth  and  Athens  through  various  causes  for 
which  the  latter  was  to  blame,  the  former  appealed  to 
Sparta  for  aid  and  upon  getting  a  favorable  response  con- 
tinued the  war  with  more  impetus.  Sparta  was  aided  by 
most  of  the  Peloponnesian  states,  and  by  a  number  of 
other  states,  including  Thebes,  beyond  the  Isthmus.  The 
Spartans  invaded  Attica,  and  the  Athenians  prudently  with- 
drew into  the  city,  while  their  fleet  ravaged  the  coast  of 


THE   GRECIAN    PENINSULA  27 

Peloponnesus.  In  the  following  year,  the  invasion  of  Attica 
was  repeated  and  again  the  homes  of  the  inhabitants  were 
made  the  prey  of  destructive  fires.  Moreover  a  plague 
broke  out  in  Athens  to  which  about  one-fourth  of  her  fight- 
ing men,  as  well  as  Pericles,  her  greatest  statesman,  fell 
victims.  In  427  B.  C,  Plataea  fell  into  the  hands  of  the 
Lacedemonian  general,  after  being  besieged  for  three 
years.  In  428  B.  C,  the  city  of  Mitelyne  revolted  from 
Athens,  but  was  quickly  forced  to  surrender  and  as  a  result 
about  one  thousand  of  her  nobles  were  put  to  death.  In 
424,  the  Athenians  invaded  Boeotia,  but  were  badly  de- 
feated at  Delium.  Other  battles  followed  within  Boeotia, 
in  which  both  the  Spartan  and  the  Athenian  commanders 
were  killed;  thereupon  negotiations  were  started  and  the 
Peace  of  Nicias  ensued  arranging  for  a  truce  of  fifty  years. 
Thus  ended  the  first  campaign  of  the  war,  lasting  from  431 
to  421  B.  C. 

Alcibiades,  an  ambitious  youth,  had  now  gained  the 
ascendency  in  Athens  and  carried  on  those  negotiations  with 
Sparta  which  continued  after  the  signing  of  the  peace,  with 
regard  to  various  matters.  Indeed,  the  war  went  on  despite 
the  truce,  Sparta  and  Athens  merely  refraining  from  in- 
vading each  other's  territory.  In  416,  the  Athenians  at- 
tacked and  sacked  the  island  of  Melos,  putting  all  her  male 
inhabitants  to  death  and  selling  the  women  and  children 
into  slavery.  Alcibiades,  who  was  indeed  very  ambitious, 
persuaded  the  Athenians  to  undertake  an  expedition  against 
the  Dorian  city  of  Syracuse,  in  Sicily,  holding  before  their 
minds  the  prospects  of  an  eventual  conquest  of  Italy  and 
Africa,  and  such  an  aggrandizement  of  their  own  power  as 
to  render  the  city  of  Athens  supreme  all  over  Greece  and 
strong  enough  to  subdue  even  Sparta.  But  the  Spartans, 
anticipating  the  plans  of  the  Athenians,  sent  military  forces 
to  Syracuse  and,  meeting  the  Athenians  in  battle,  virtually 


28  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORLD 

annihilated  their  army  and  their  fleet.  On  being  defeated, 
the  Athenian  forces  had  decided  to  retreat  and  in  fact  did 
march  into  the  interior  of  Sicily.  But  they  were  overtaken, 
surrounded,  and  compelled  to  surrender.  The  complete 
failure  of  the  Athenian  expedition  is  due  largely  to  the  in- 
competence of  its  leader,  Nicias,  who  was  superstitious 
enough  to  delay  his  retreat  until  all  hope  for  the  salvation 
of  the  army  had  been  lost. 

The  destruction  of  her  military  forces  in  Sicily  proved 
an  irretrievable  disaster  for  Athens.  The  period  between 
421  and  the  defeat  of  the  Sicilian  attack  at  413  marks  the 
waging  of  the  second  Peloponnesian  war,  and  we  now 
cross  the  threshold  of  the  third  war,  in  which  Athens,  con- 
tinuing in  her  downward  path,  finally  lost  her  position  as  a 
great  power  in  the  direction  of  the  policies  of  Greece. 
Alcibiades  had  proved  a  traitor  to  his  own  country  and  made 
himself  the  tool  of  the  schemes  of  the  Spartans.  When 
Chios  revolted  against  the  authority  of  Athens,  the  Spartans, 
upon  his  advice,  sent  an  army  to  aid  the  rebels.  The  de- 
flection of  Chios  was  imitated  by  almost  all  the  rest  of  the 
Athenian  allies  in  Asia,  excepting  Samos,  but  Athens,  rising 
superior  to  the  dangers  and  difficulties  which  confronted 
her,  gathered  up  all  her  remaining  resources  to  cope  with 
the  enemy.  The  Athenians  defeated  the  Chions  (412)  and 
recovered  Hytilene  and  Clazomenae.  The  Persians  had  in 
the  meantime  come  to  the  assistance  of  the  Lacedemonians, 
but  had  later  withdrawn  from  the  alliance,  thanks  to  the 
intrigues  of  Alcibiades,  who  had  lost  the  confidence  of  the 
Spartans.  Alcibiades,  who  then  succeeded  in  ingratiating 
himself  again  upon  the  Athenians,  seized  the  power  and 
was  instrumental  in  replacing  the  democratic  by  an  oligarchic 
government  in  the  city.  The  army  of  the  Athenians  at 
Samos  recalled  Alcibiades  and  gave  him  the  command, 
and  the  war  went  on  under  his  leadership.    At  Cynossema 


THE   GRECIAN    PENINSULA  29 

and  Abydus  the  Athenian  fleet  was  victorious  over  the 
Spartan  allies  and  at  Cyzicus,  routed  the  Peloponnesian 
fleet  so  thoroughly  that  the  Spartans  proposed  terms  of 
peace,  which,  however,  were  rejected.  For  a  short  time, 
success  favored  the  Athenians,  but  the  Spartans,  aided 
by  the  Persians  who  had  changed  front  again,  equipped 
a  new  fleet  and  defeated  the  Athenians  off  Notium  (407 
B.  C.)  ;  the  Spartans  were  themselves  defeated,  in  their 
turn,  by  the  fleet  of  the  Athenians  at  Arginusae  (406  B.  C). 
At  last,  the  next  year,  the  Athenian  fleet  was  surprised  by 
Lysander,  the  Spartan  admiral,  and,  caught  unawares,  was 
captured  at  Aegospotami,  without  being  able  to  strike  a 
blow.  The  victory  was  far-reaching  in  results,  for  Athens 
was  rendered  thereby  virtually  powerless  to  resist  Lysander, 
who  cut  off  the  supplies  of  Athens  and  thus  caused  a  famine 
in  the  city.  He  also  blockaded  Piraeus  and  laid  siege 
to  the  city;  the  Athenians  suffered  from  famine  so  much 
that  they  were  compelled  to  surrender,  and  comply  with 
Lysander's  demands  to  demolish  the  fortifications  of  Piraeus 
and  to  yield  possession  of  all  their  ships  except  twelve. 
Athens  also  agreed  to  become  a  subject  ally  of  Sparta. 
Thus  ended  the  third  period  of  the  war,  having  lasted  from 
413  to  404  B.  C,  and  indeed  the  whole  Peloponnesian  war 
itself,  after  having  lasted  for  the  space  of  twenty-seven 
years. 

During  the  generation  following  the  completion  of  the 
war,  Sparta  was  supreme  in  Greece,  and  instead  of  the 
democratic  constitutions,  oligarchic  governments  were  estab- 
lished over  the  various  states.  At  about  this  time  (401) 
the  Spartans,  in  order  to  show  their  gratitude  to  the  Persians 
for  their  assistance,  sent  an  army  of  10,000  to  help  Cyrus 
seize  the  throne  from  his  brother  Artaxerxes.  But  Cyrus 
was  defeated  and  the  Greek  generals  were  all  slain.  Upon 
this,  the  Greeks  chose  new  generals,  including  Xenophon, 


30  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORLD 

who  later  became  the  famous  historian  of  the  expedition, 
and  began  their  march  home,  and  after  a  most  difficult 
journey  reached  the  Black  Sea.  The  Spartans  later  under- 
took incursions  into  Asia  Minor,  defeated  the  Persians 
under  Tisaphernes,  and  ravaged  the  conquered  territory. 
But  Agesilaus,  the  king  of  Sparta  who  was  in  command  of 
the  expedition,  was  obliged  to  return  home  where  troubles 
were  brewing,  in  order  to  save  his  native  country  from  the 
dangers  threatening  it  from  closer  quarters. 

The  Persians  who  had  perceived  the  growing  disaffection 
of  the  Greek  states  at  the  progress  and  prosperity  of  Sparta 
sent  over  delegates  to  Greece  to  bribe  the  states  there  into 
rising  up  against  Sparta.  Athens  formed  an  alliance  with 
Thebes,  her  ancient  enemy,  and  the  combination  was  further 
enlarged  by  the  accession  of  Corinth  and  Argos  to  the  group. 
Whereas  at  first,  hostilities  had  been  confined  within  the 
borders  of  Boeotia,  now,  the  field  of  war  was  transferred 
to  Peloponnesus,  and  what  is  known  as  the  Corinthian  war 
ensued.  It  was  when  the  Spartans  had  realized  their  danger 
from  the  side  of  the  new  alliance  that  they  saw  fit  to  recall 
Agesilaus.  At  Corinth  (394)  the  Lacedemonians  were  suc- 
cessful, but  at  Cuidus  their  fleet  was  defeated.  The  Theban 
allies  assisted  by  the  Persians  continued  the  war  with  vary- 
ing fortunes,  with  the  result  that  Sparta  lost  all  her  mari- 
time empire.  The  Spartans  again  acquired  a  strong  fleet, 
and  the  Athenians  depressed  at  the  lack  of  supplies  of 
corn  from  the  Black  Sea  were  loth  for  peace.  In  fact,  all 
Greece  had  tired  of  the  war  and  was  ready  to  listen  to 
proposals  for  peace.  Negotiations  were  begun,  and  the 
infamous  Peace  of  Antalcidas  was  concluded  (387  B.  C.) 
by  which  Greece  agreed  to  play  into  the  hands  of  Persia. 
All  the  Greek  cities  in  Asia  were  surrendered  to  the  latter, 
and  the  rest  of  the  Greek  cities  were  made  independent, 


THE   GRECIAN    PENINSULA  31 

and  the  alliance  among  them  broken.  This  was  just  what 
Sparta  desired,  for  with  the  dissolution  of  the  Boeotian 
league,  no  formidable  barrier  remained  against  her  aggres- 
sive schemes.  By  a  surprise  attack,  Sparta  seized  the  citadel 
of  Thebes,  dissolved  the  Olynthian  confederacy,  which  was 
the  union  of  a  number  of  Macedonian  and  Greek  towns,  and 
destroyed  the  city  of  Mantinea.  The  other  Greek  states 
became  indignant  and  a  movement  began  in  resistance  to 
Sparta  which  resulted  in  the  ultimate  overthrow  of  Spartan 
hegemony  over  Greece. 

At  this  time  Pelopidas,  a  Theban  exile,  re-entered  his 
native  city,  instigated  a  revolt  against  the  Lacedaemonian 
garrison,  and  freed  Thebes  from  the  rule  of  the  latter; 
under  the  leadership  of  Epaminondas,  a  friend  of  the 
former,  the  Boeotian  league  was  revived,  and  Athens  was 
encouraged  to  form  a  new  confederacy.  The  Spartans, 
who  meant  to  prevent  the  growth  of  Theban  power,  met 
Epaminondas,  the  commander  of  the  Thebans,  at  Leuctra 
(371)  and  suffered  a  complete  defeat.  Epaminondas  pro- 
ceeded to  Laconia  and  ravaged  the  province,  and  then  lib- 
erated the  Messenians,  but  when  in  362  he  again  led  an 
expedition  into  Peloponnesus,  he  met  the  Spartans  at  Man- 
tinea,  and  though  victorious,  was  killed  in  the  battle.  With 
the  death  of  Epaminondas,  the  power  of  Thebes  came  prac- 
tically to  an  end. 

We  must  consider  now,  before  we  proceed  further,  the 
rise  of  Macedonia,  a  country  whose  fortunes  began  to  mingle 
very  intricately  with  the  fortunes  of  Greece  proper.  The 
Macedonians  were  of  Hellenic  stock,  a  fact  which  was  recog- 
nized by  the  other  Greeks,  and  their  history  becomes  im- 
portant for  our  purpose  at  the  period  of  the  rule  of  Philip 
II  (359-336  B.  C.).  When  Philip  ascended  the  throne, 
he  was  consumed  with  the  ambition  of  achieving  conquests 
in  Greece,  and  to  realize  this  ambition,  he  began  to  make 


32  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

encroachments  upon  Greek  territory.  First,  he  seized  Am- 
phipolis,  the  city  which  was  the  gateway  of  Macedonia  into 
Thrace,  and  thus  succeeded  in  gaining  much  territory  in 
Thrace.  Then  Philip  seized  the  city  of  Olynthus  (348 
B.  C.)  and  conquered  all  the  cities  (members  of  the  Chal- 
cidian  confederacy),  which  were  her  allies.  He  succeeded 
in  participating  in  the  affairs  of  continental  Greece  by  brib- 
ing liberally  the  Greek  politicians,  especially  those  of  Athens. 
Philip's  aid  was  requested  and  given  during  the  so-called 
Sacred  War  against  the  Phocians,  who  had  robbed  the  tem- 
ple of  Apollo.  Philip  had  difficulties  in  the  start,  but  finally 
compelled  the  Phocians  to  yield  to  punishment.  A  second 
and  a  third  Sacred  War  broke  out,  and  Philip  was  again 
called  to  administer  punishment.  Philip  at  once  used  this 
opportunity  as  a  means  of  re-entering  continental  Greece 
and  invading  Attica.  Athens  perceived  her  imminent  danger 
and,  securing  Thebes  as  an  ally,  sent  a  force  to  fight  Philip. 
At  Chaeronea  (338)  Philip  defeated  the  allied  army,  and 
through  this  victory  secured  for  himself  ascendancy  over 
all  Greece.  At  Corinth  a  convention  of  all  the  Greek  states 
(except  Sparta)  was  called  by  him,  and  plans  were  made  to 
make  a  general  recruit  of  forces  from  all  Greece  and  from 
Macedonia  in  order  to  invade  and  subjugate  Persia.  But 
when  the  expedition  was  made  ready  and  the  march  had 
just  begun,  Philip  was  assassinated  and  Alexander,  his  son, 
succeeded  to  his  authority. 

Alexander  was  quite  young  when  he  ascended  the  kingly 
throne  and  was  quite  young  when  he  died,  but  his  short 
career  was  sufficient  to  stamp  him  in  history  as  one  of  the 
greatest  military  generals  of  mankind.  At  the  death  of 
Philip,  the  Greek  cities  thought  they  could  regain  their  in- 
dependence and  started  movements  to  that  effect,  but  Alex- 
ander was  not  to  be  outwitted;  he  quickly  marched  into 
Greece,  suppressed  all  rebellious  action  and  secured  from  the 


ALEXANDER  THE  GREAT 


THE   GRECIAN    PENINSULA  33 

Grecian  states  recognition  of  his  suzerainty.  At  334  B.  C, 
he  was  ready  to  march  at  the  head  of  the  expedition,  equip- 
ped by  his  father,  for  the  conquest  of  Persia,  after  having 
crushed  a  new  revolt  in  Thebes  and  having  razed  the  city 
to  the  ground.  He  crossed  the  Hellespont,  marched  to  the 
northeast  and  met  the  Persian  army  on  the  farther  bank  of 
the  river  Granicus.  Alexander,  not  to  be  daunted,  ordered 
his  cavalry  to  cross  the  river,  and  he  immediately  followed 
upon  their  heels.  There,  his  forces,  inspired  by  enthusiasm 
at  the  example  of  his  own  valor,  charged  furiously  at  the 
enemy,  and  routed  him. 

The  gateway  into  Asia  Minor  was  now  open,  and  city 
after  city  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  youthful  commander. 
Some  states  resisted,  indeed,  but  they  were  quickly  subdued. 
First  the  west  and  then  the  south  were  overrun ;  the  city  of 
Halicamassus,  proving  obstinate,  was  razed  to  the  ground. 
As  winter  was  approaching,  Alexander  sent  a  small  part 
of  the  army  back,  and  then  commenced  the  task  of  sub- 
duing the  provinces  of  Caria,  Lycia,  and  Pamphulia,  a  task 
which  he  successfully  accomplished.  On  reaching  Gordium 
in  Phrygia,  he  was  joined  by  recruits  from  Greece,  and  in 
the  spring  of  333  B.  C.  he  resumed  his  march.  He  de- 
scended into  Cilicia,  proceeded  along  the  Mediterranean 
coast,  and  on  the  plain  of  Issus,  at  the  northeast  corner  of 
the  Mediterranean,  he  met  a  Persian  army,  said  to  have  con- 
sisted of  600,000  men,  commanded  by  Darius  in  person. 
The  position  was  too  small  and  narrow  in  extent  to  allow 
free  deployment  for  the  army  of  Darius,  and  Alexander, 
availing  himself  of  this  disadvantage  of  the  enemy,  charged 
and  routed  the  opposing  host,  which  fled  precipitantly,  ac- 
companied by  Darius,  its  king. 

Alexander  did  not  at  once  continue  his  march  into  the 
empire,  but  turned  southward  in  order  to  subdue  Phoenicia. 


34  WAR  OR  A   UNITED    WORLD 

The  inhabitants  of  Sidon  welcomed  him  readily,  but  Tyrus 
refused  him  entrance  within  its  walls.  Thereupon,  Alex- 
ander laid  siege  to  the  city  and  after  an  effort  of  seven 
months  succeeded  in  forcing  his  entrance  into  the  besieged 
city.  Thence,  Alexander  marched  in  the  direction  of  Egypt ; 
Palestine  and  Philistia  surrendered,  and  Gaza,  which  of- 
fered resistance,  was  taken  and  its  inhabitants  sold  as  slaves. 
He  marched  through  Egypt  and  won  the  respect  of  the  in- 
habitants by  evincing  reverence  for  their  religious  tenets. 
At  the  mouth  of  the  western  branch  of  the  river  Nile  he 
founded  the  city  of  Alexandria,  which  later  gained  much 
prominence  in  commerce  and  learning.  From  the  new  city, 
Alexander  set  out  to  visit  the  oracle  of  Ammon  in  the  heart 
of  the  desert  of  Libya,  and  the  prestige  which  he  thus  gained 
he  put  to  good  use  in  securing  from  the  natives  and  his  fol- 
lowers the  devotion  normally  directed  to  a  divinity.  Leav- 
ing Egypt,  he  resumed  his  invasion  of  Persia,  and  at  Phoe- 
nicia rejected  proposals  of  peace,  on  the  part  of  Darius. 
Marching  through  Syria,  he  crossed  the  rivers  Euphrates 
and  Tigris,  and,  after  a  four  days'  march,  came  upon  the 
enemy's  cavalry.  Darius  had  encamped  with  his  whole  army 
upon  the  plain  of  Arbela  near  the  village  of  Gaugamela,  and, 
though  Alexander  had  only  40,000  foot  and  7,000  cavalry, 
he  charged  the  immense  host  of  Darius  and  scattered  it 
(331  B.  C).  The  battle  of  Arbela  has  been  rightly  re- 
garded as  one  of  the  decisive  battles  in  history,  inasmuch  as 
it  sealed  the  overthrow  of  the  dominion  of  Asiatic  power. 
Alexander,  flushed  with  his  victory,  marched  into  Babylon 
and  was  acclaimed  by  the  population,  which  met  him  with 
open  arms;  he  showed  himself  very  tolerant  toward  the  re- 
ligious practices  of  the  people  and  even  participated  in  them, 
thus  in  general  gaining  the  esteem  and  securing  the  allegi- 
ance of  the  inhabitants  of  the  territories  which  he  aimed  to 


THE   GRECIAN    PENINSULA  35 

subdue.  From  Babylon,  Alexander  proceeded  to  Susa  and 
Persepolis  and  took  possession  of  the  vast  treasures  of  the 
Persian  government  and  king,  and  thence  he  set  out  in  pur- 
suit of  Darius.  The  latter,  who  had  taken  refuge  in  flight, 
was  assassinated  by  Bessus,  one  of  his  satraps,  and  Alex- 
ander caught  up  with  Darius  only  to  find  him  dead. 

Alexander  was  still  thirsty  for  conquest  and  urged  his 
army  toward  the  east.  He  subdued  the  northern  and  eastern 
provinces  of  Persia,  namely,  Bactria  and  Sogdeana.  While 
thus  engaged  in  conquests,  Alexander  founded  numerous 
cities  and  peopled  them  with  captives,  with  fugitives  from 
the  conquered  territory,  and  with  his  own  warriors.  Leav- 
ing Bactria  (327  B.  C.)  Alexander  crossed  the  river  Indus 
and  began  a  campaign  of  invasion  into  India.  He  did  not 
have  serious  difficulty  in  bringing  the  various  provinces  into 
subjection;  Porus,  the  Indian  king,  who  was  the  only  one 
to  offer  serious  resistance,  was  captured,  but  was  given  back 
his  kingdom,  though  as  subject  to  the  dominion  of  Mace- 
donia. From  the  banks  of  the  river  Hydaspes,  Alexander 
proceeded  and  captured  the  city  of  Sangala.  By  this  time, 
his  soldiers  had  become  weary  of  continued  marches  through 
strange  lands,  and  they  refused  to  go  forward.  Alexander 
was  obliged  to  yield,  in  spite  of  his  passionate  desire  to  ex- 
tend his  conquests  to  the  Ganges.  So  Alexander  embarked 
on  board  a  large  fleet  and  proceeded  to  sail  down  the  river 
Indus.  After  a  trip  of  several  months,  the  mouth  of  the 
river  was  reached;  at  this  point  Alexander  dispatched  his 
general,  Nearchus,  to  sail  along  the  coast  of  the  Persian  gulf 
in  order  to  discover  some  opening  of  the  river  Euphrates, 
and  thus  find  out  whether  there  was  any  sea  route  connect- 
ing the  Indus  with  the  Euphrates,  and  he  himself  marched 
to  the  west  through  what  is  known  as  Beluchistan.  On 
reaching  Carmania  he  was  rejoined  by  Nearchus,  who  gave 


36  WAR  OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

him  the  joyful  news  of  the  successful  completion  of  the 
voyage  and  of  the  existence  of  a  maritime  route  connecting 
the  West  with  the  East. 

Upon  his  return,  Alexander  decided  to  make  Babylon  the 
capital  of  his  now  immense  empire.  But  his  Macedonian 
veterans  were  displeased  with  his  plans  to  incorporate  Asi- 
atics into  his  army,  and  also  with  his  own  affectation  of  the 
manners  of  an  Eastern  monarch,  and  broke  out  in  open 
mutiny.  Alexander  succeeded  in  bringing  them  into  better 
humor  and  effected  a  reconciliation,  an  event  which  he  sub- 
sequently celebrated  by  a  magnificent  banquet.  While  oc- 
cupied with  the  consideration  of  grandiose  projects  for  the 
administration  and  aggrandizement  of  his  new  empire,  Alex- 
ander was  seized  with  fever  and  died  at  Babylon  (323  B. 
C),  when  only  thirty-two  years  of  age.  The  principal 
achievements  of  his  career  consisted  in  the  subjugation  of 
Persia  to  Greek  authority,  in  the  ensuring  of  a  communica- 
tion between  the  East  and  the  West,  and  in  the  spreading  of 
Hellenic  culture  throughout  the  then  known  world. 

As  there  was  no  one  who  possessed  enough  force  of  char- 
acter and  genius  to  follow  in  the  steps  of  Alexander,  the  em- 
pire was  broken  up  and  divided  among  numerous  success- 
ors. Before  proceeding,  let  us  mention  that  during  Alex- 
ander's absence  from  Europe,  Sparta  had  risen  in  revolt,  to- 
gether with  other  Peloponnesian  states,  but  had  been  finally 
defeated  in  battle  and  forced  to  yield  and  recognize  once 
more  the  supremacy  of  Macedonian  rule.  At  the  death  of 
Alexander,  Athens  determined  to  secure  independence,  and, 
getting  other  northern  states  to  join  her,  she  equipped  an 
army  and  commenced  military  operations  against  the  Mace- 
donian generals  in  Greece.  These  operations  have  made  up 
what  is  called  the  Lamian  war.  Near  Crannon,  in  Thessaly, 
Antipater,  who  had  succeeded  Alexander  with  respect  to  the 


THE   GRECIAN    PENINSULA  37 

government  of  Greece,  inflicted  a  decisive  defeat  upon  the 
forces  of  the  allies  (322  B.  C),  and  one  by  one  all  the  allied 
states  were  forced  to  submit  and  to  lay  down  their  arms. 
The  alliance  thus  being  broken,  Athens  was  left  alone  and 
at  the  mercy  of  the  victor,  and  she  had  to  comply  with  all 
the  severe  terms  of  the  latter. 

We  need  not  follow  the  fortunes  of  the  various  parts  of 
Alexander's  empire,  for  we  are  concerned  here  with  the  de- 
velopments only  as  they  occurred  in  Grecian  territory.  The 
lands  in  Asia  Minor  were  joined  to  the  kingdom  of  Syria, 
and  Greece,  together  with  Macedonia,  were  given  over  to 
Antipater  and  Craterus,  both  of  whom,  as  we  have  just  seen, 
were  confronted  with  numerous  obstacles  from  the  very 
start  of  their  reign.  The  years  following  the  death  of  Alex- 
ander were  full  of  events  in  Greece  and  of  military  opera- 
tions in  conjunction  with  or  against  the  Macedonian  rulers. 
Greece  changed  rulers  a  number  of  times,  but  the  vicissitudes 
of  the  fortunes  of  the  latter  have  for  us  no  special  interest 
in  this  connection.  In  279  B.  C,  the  Gauls  invaded  Rome 
and  after  marching  through  Macedonia  forced  the  pass  of 
Thermopylae  and  attempted  to  loot  the  Temple  of  Apollo  at 
Delphi.  According  to  tradition,  the  God  intervened,  and  the 
Gauls,  having  lost  their  leader,  returned  to  Thrace. 

While  under  the  feet  of  Macedonian  authority,  a  confed- 
eration was  formed  in  Greece,  named  the  Achaean  League, 
including  the  Peloponnesian  cities.  Aratus  was  the  most 
important  of  the  leaders  of  the  league;  he  increased  its 
strength  until  he  became  confronted  by  the  growing  power 
of  Sparta.  A  rivalry  sprang  up  and  Sparta  was  finally  con- 
quered. Another  confederacy  was  the  Aetolian  League,  es- 
tablished about  280  B.  C.  and  made  up  of  the  tribes  of  cen- 
tral Greece.  When  the  Romans  conquered  Macedonia,  they 
seem  to  have  dissolved  the  league.     The  Achaean  League 


38  WAR  OR   A   UNITED   WORLD 

survived  the  death  of  its  rival,  with  whom,  indeed,  it  had 
waged  a  number  of  wars,  and  continued  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  Romans  until  it  added  a  number  of  other  states, 
including  Sparta,  to  its  original  constituents.  Later,  the 
Achaeans  became  enemies  of  the  Romans  because  of  the  un- 
just treatment  which  a  thousand  of  their  leading  men  had 
received  at  the  hands  of  the  latter,  and  began  to  incite  their 
countrymen  to  war.  But  with  the  siege  and  occupation  of 
Corinth  (by  Mummuius,  the  Roman  general,  in  146  B.  C.) 
the  power  of  the  league  came  to  an  end.  Generally  speaking, 
with  the  event  of  the  fall  of  Corinth  all  Greece  came  under 
the  rule  of  Rome. 

From  323  to  146  B.  C.  is  the  interval  which  elapsed  be- 
tween the  death  of  Alexander  and  the  conquest  of  Greece 
by  the  Romans.  Now  begins  the  interval  during  which 
Greece  continued  under  the  rule  of  the  Romans  up  to  the 
time  of  Constantine,  the  Roman  Emperor  who  inaugurated 
the  Byzantine  Empire  in  the  East.  When  the  Achaean 
League  had  suffered  dissolution,  Greece  was  recognized  as  a 
Roman  province.  The  governor  of  Macedonia  was  en- 
trusted with  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  Greece,  and 
the  Greeks  who  were  aware  of  the  futility  of  measures  of 
resistance  acquiesced  in  the  arrangement.  Not  many  events 
of  military  importance  occurred  during  the  period,  inasmuch 
as  the  center  of  gravity  had  shifted  from  Macedonia  as  well 
as  from  Greece  to  Rome.  But  Greece  played  its  part  in  the 
development  of  rivalries  between  various  Roman  leaders. 
One  point  worthy  of  notice  is  the  siding  of  the  Greek  states 
with  Mithridates  during  the  Mithridatic  war  (88-89  B.  C), 
in  which  Rome  constituted  the  other  belligerent  party. 
Greece  suffered  for  its  intervention  very  severely.  The 
Roman  general,  Cornelius  Sulla,  confiscated  a  good  deal  of 
property  in  Greece  and  punished  the  disloyal  communities; 


THE   GRECIAN    PENINSULA  39 

moreover,  owing  to  the  protracted  campaigns,  Greece  was 
left  in  a  devastated  condition.  The  conflict  between  Julius 
Caesar  and  Pompey,  which  determined  the  final  supremacy 
of  the  former  over  the  latter  with  respect  to  the  destinies  of 
Rome,  furnished  another  episode  during  which  Greece 
played  a  part.  In  effect,  the  Greeks  provided  Pompey  with 
a  large  part  of  his  fleet,  and  when,  in  48  B.  C.,  the  decisive 
battle  was  fought  between  the  two  great  opponents  upon  the 
field  of  Pharsala  on  Greek  territory,  the  natives  contributed 
to  both  armies  through  extensive  requisitions  made  upon 
them.  After  Pompey 's  defeat,  the  whole  country  fell  into 
the  power  of  Caesar ;  the  latter,  however,  proved  lenient  on 
the  whole,  except  with  respect  to  individual  cities.  Again, 
when  Caesar  was  assassinated,  and  the  conspirators  at- 
tempted to  seize  the  power,  Greece  took  the  side  of  the  latter, 
Brutus  particularly,  but  she  was  really  too  weak  to  render 
any  considerable  assistance  (42  B.  C).  Greece  also  suf- 
fered from  a  number  of  wars,  in  which  she  did  not  directly 
participate,  by  being  called  upon  to  defray  their  expenses,  so 
that  the  country  became  financially  exhausted,  especially 
during  the  time  of  Mark  Antony. 

During  the  reign  of  Augustus,  all  Greece  was  converted 
into  the  province  of  Achaea,  excepting  Thessaly,  which,  to- 
gether with  Macedonia,  made  up  another  province.  Later, 
the  danger  from  foreign  invasions  was  renewed;  in  175  A. 
D.  there  was  one  incursion,  which,  however,  proved  unsuc- 
cessful; in  253,  the  inhabitants  of  Thessalonica  averted  an- 
other projected  attack  through  determined  resistance,  but 
in  267-268,  hordes  of  Goths  invaded  the  territory  and  cap- 
tured Athens;  finally  Attic  soldiers,  assisted  by  a  Roman 
fleet,  succeeded  in  repelling  and  destroying  the  invaders. 

With  the  establishment  of  Byzantium  as  the  capital  of  the 
western  division  of  the  Roman  Empire  in  330  A.  D.,  a  new 


40  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORLD 

historical  era  was  inaugurated.  The  mantle  of  Hellenism  fell 
upon  the  shoulders  of  the  newly  founded  institution  popu- 
larly known  as  the  Byzantine  Empire  (more  correctly 
termed  Later  Roman  Empire),  and  we  can  follow  the  for- 
tunes of  the  Hellenic  spirit  more  accurately  in  tracing  the 
history  of  the  above-mentioned  Byzantine  Empire.  From 
now  on,  therefore,  the  field  of  our  interest  is  shifted  from 
the  territory  of  Greece,  as  such,  to  the  country  embraced  at 
first  under  the  sway  of  Constantine  I,  and  later  under  the 
rule  of  the  various  Byzantine  emperors.  The  period  now 
under  observation  begins  with  323  A.  D.  and  ends  in  the 
year  1453,  when  Constantinople  fell  into  the  hands  of  the 
Moslem  invaders  and  the  empire  was  dissolved.  Whereas 
before  Athens  or  Sparta  occupied  the  center  of  attention  as 
exponents  of  the  Greek  spirit  and  culture,  now  Constanti- 
nople assumes  prominence  and  pre-eminence ;  consequently  a 
word  about  the  latter  city  will  not  be  amiss. 

The  city  of  Byzantium  was  founded  in  the  seventh  cen- 
tury before  Christ  by  Dorian  settlers  from  the  state  of 
Megara.  The  city  was  so  fortunate  in  its  location  that  it 
could  not  fail  to  play  a  very  important  role  in  the  drama  of 
the  life  of  Eastern  Europe.  Many  times  the  state  of  Byzan- 
tium fell  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy,  e.  g.,  into  those  of 
Persia  and  later  into  those  of  Alexander,  forming  in  the  case 
of  the  latter,  part  of  the  great  Macedonian*  Empire.  Later, 
after  Byzantium  had  been  incorporated  into  the  Roman 
Empire,  there  was  an  occasion  when  it  resisted  Roman  rule 
so  violently  that  the  emperor  had  to  appear  personally  to 
punish  the  resistance  of  the  town,  with  the  result  that  the 
garrison  of  the  latter  was  cut  to  pieces  and  the  town  itself 
deprived  of  all  municipal  privileges.  When  in  323  A.  D. 
war  broke  out  between  Constantine,  the  emperor  of  the  West, 
and  Licinius,  the  latter  took  refuge  in  Byzantium  and  there 


THE   GRECIAN    PENINSULA  41 

made  a  desperate  stand.  After  a  siege  of  many  months, 
the  city  surrendered  and  the  cause  of  Constantine  became 
supreme.  Constantine  in  the  meantime  decided  that  it  was 
necessary  to  establish  a  new  capital  in  the  East  and  his  choice 
fell  upon  Byzantium,  but  the  name  was  changed,  in  honor  of 
the  Emperor,  to  Constantinople.  The  event  of  chief  im- 
portance during  the  reign  of  Constantine  was  the  recognition 
of  Christianity  as  the  official  religion. 

After  the  death  of  Constantine,  the  three  sons  of  the  em- 
peror, Constand,  Constantius,  and  Constantine,  divided  the 
whole  empire  among  themselves,  but  quarreled  in  the  pro- 
cess so  that  at  the  end  of  sixteen  years,  Constantine  was 
left  master  of  the  whole  territory.  During  his  reign,  Con- 
stantine was  occupied  with  fighting,  ceaselessly,  German 
tribes  in  the  West  and  the  Persians  in  the  East.  In  fact 
the  whole  life  of  the  Byzantine  Empire  may  be  correctly 
viewed  as  a  ceaseless  warfare  against  Asiatic  powers, 
namely,  Persia,  the  Saracens,  and  the  Turks.  The  Byzan- 
tine Empire  arose  at  the  time  when  the  currents  of  Asia 
began  to  gain  momentum  and  to  overflow  into  Europe, 
and  it  was  the  function  of  the  Byzantine  Empire  to  inter- 
cept these  incursions  until  the  periods  when  Western  culture 
became  secure  and  crystallized  into  a  state  which  made  it 
immune  from  the  result  of  foreign  admixture.  The  reign 
of  Julian — who  succeeded  Constantine — was  marked  by  simi- 
lar wars  against  the  Germans  and  the  Persians.  When  in 
372  the  Huns  burst  into  Europe,  and  into  the  lands  which 
border  the  Black  Sea,  the  native  inhabitants  were  overcome 
with  fright  and  fled  before  the  advance  of  the  invaders.  The 
Visigoths,  particularly,  begged  the  Roman  Emperor  to  be 
allowed  to  cross  the  Danube,  in  order  to  escape  the  danger 
from  the  Huns.  They  were  granted  the  permission  but 
were  later  illtreated  by  the  Romans  and  a  war  broke  out. 
In  the  battle  of  Adrianople,  the  Roman  Empire  suffered 


42  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORU) 

complete  defeat  at  the  hands  of  the  Goths  and  the  em- 
peror (who  was  Valens  at  this  period)  was  left  killed  on 
the  battlefield.  The  Goths  bore  down  from  Adrianople  to 
Constantinople,  but,  dismayed  by  the  sight  of  the  strong 
fortifications  of  the  city,  refrained  from  attack.  Theodosius, 
who  succeeded  Valens  on  the  throne,  made  peace  with  the 
Goths  and  agreed  to  allow  them  to  settle  on  Thracian  ter- 
ritory and  to  introduce  into  his  armies  their  chiefs  with 
their  companies  of  warriors.  This  was  indeed  a  very  dan- 
gerous experiment,  for,  by  giving  the  Goths  military  author- 
ity it  resulted  in  putting  the  empire  into  the  hands  of  the 
barbarians.  When  Theodosius  died  and  the  empire  fell  into 
the  hands  of  weaker  successors,  troubles  began  at  once. 
The  Western  Roman  Empire  largely  fell  into  the  hands  of 
the  Teutons,  and  even  Constantinople  was  in  danger.  Never- 
theless the  Eastern  Byzantine  Empire  was  saved,  although 
the  Western  Empire  succumbed  to  the  attacks  of  the  Teu- 
tons— a  fact  which  evidences  the  superior  vitality  of  the 
former. 

Arcadius,  a  feeble  emperor,  died  in  408  A.  D.,  and  was 
succeeded  by  Theodosius  II.  His  reign  was  quiet,  disturbed 
only  by  a  short  war  with  the  Persians,  and  a  longer  one  with 
Attila,  who,  at  the  head  of  the  Huns,  ravaged  Europe  for 
some  time.  It  was  during  the  reigns  of  Leo  I  (456-474), 
Zeno  (474-491)  and  Anastasius  (491-518)  that  the  Roman 
Empire  was  finally  extinguished  in  the  West,  and  fortu- 
nately the  above-mentioned  emperors  guided  the  fortunes  of 
the  Eastern  Empire  very  wisely  during  those  troublous 
times.  Zeno  had  considerable  trouble  with  the  Ostrogoths, 
and  the  latter  were  conciliated  only  when  offered  the  chance 
to  conquer  and  possess  Italy. 

Anastasius  was  succeeded  by  Justinian,  who  has  been 
termed  "the  Great."     Justinian  was  fortunate  in  being  as- 


THE   GRECIAN    PENINSULA  43 

sisted  by  Belissarius,  a  really  great  general.  The  latter,  in 
533,  sailed  from  Constantinople  for  the  conquest  of  the  Van- 
dal kingdom  in  Africa — a  feat  which  he  achieved  in  a  single 
and  short  campaign.  Justinian,  satisfied  with  the  winning 
of  Africa,  determined  upon  the  conquest  of  Italy.  This  un- 
dertaking was  more  difficult,  but  Belissarius  readily  entered 
upon  it  in  535,  subdued  Sicily  and  Naples,  and  in  536  en- 
tered Rome.  This  campaign  was  ended  in  554,  by  Narses, 
another  able  general,  who  restored  the  whole  of  Italy  to  the 
Empire.  In  the  meantime,  the  southern  part  of  Spain  was 
wrested  from  the  power  of  the  Visigoths.  But  the  latter 
years  of  Justinian's  reign  were  clouded  with  many  misfor- 
tunes. Slavs,  Bulgarians  and  Germans  ravaged  various 
provinces,  and  the  empire  had  to  bear  the  strain  of  wars  with 
the  Persians  and  with  the  Goths  at  the  same  time.  After 
the  death  of  Justinian,  the  empire  was  attacked  by  enemies 
on  three  sides;  by  the  Lombards  in  Italy,  the  Slavs  and 
Avars  in  the  Balkans,  and  the  Persians  in  the  East.  The 
former  conquered  Italy  and  the  second  took  possession  of 
Pannonia  and  Dacia.  The  Slavs  occupied  a  large  part  of 
Macedonia  and  penetrated  into  the  heart  of  Peloponnesus, 
where  they  settled.  On  the  other  hand,  the  struggle  of  the 
empire  with  Persia  was  uncompromising.  During  the  reign 
of  Phocas,  the  Persians  overran  the  eastern  provinces  and 
the  ruin  of  the  empire  was  almost  complete.  Antioch  and 
Damascus  among  the  great  cities,  and  Egypt  among  the 
provinces,  were  conquered,  and  in  614  Jerusalem  was  de- 
stroyed. Heraclius,  who  succeeded  Phocas,  proved  a  much 
more  competent  emperor.  He  reorganized  the  army,  de- 
feated the  Persian  forces  in  a  series  of  great  battles,  and 
ultimately  broke  the  power  of  Persia.  Thus  the  empire  was 
restored  and  the  lost  provinces  were  recovered.  But  during 
the  latter  years  of  the  reign  of  Heraclius,  a  new  danger  ap- 


44  WAR  OR  A   UNITED    WORLD 

peared  in  the  shape  of  the  invasions  of  the  Saracens.  Con- 
stantinople was  besieged  twice ;  once  in  673-677,  and  a  sec- 
ond time,  at  the  accession  of  Leo  III,  when  the  city  was  be- 
sieged by  land  and  sea  for  a  year  (717-718).  Both  times 
the  city  resisted  effectively,  and  Europe  was  saved  from 
Moslem  aggression. 

The  reign  of  Leo  III  opens  a  new  period,  during  which 
the  government  was  reorganized  and  the  empire  established 
on  new  foundations.  Following  Leo's  reign,  for  a  period  of 
a  hundred  and  twenty-five  years,  the  Byzantine  Empire  en- 
joyed its  golden  age.  Later,  up  to  the  middle  of  the  tenth 
century,  the  situation  was  full  of  operations  against  the  Mos- 
lems, consisting  of  expeditions  by  the  one  against  the  terri- 
tories of  the  other  and  captures  of  fortresses.  In  826  the 
island  of  Crete  was  conquered  by  the  Moslems  and  Sicily  by 
the  Saracens  of  Africa.  Basil  I,  who  ascended  the  throne  in 
867,  pursued  an  energetic  policy  with  respect  to  the  West, 
wresting  south  Italy  from  the  Saracens  and  depriving  the 
Lombards  of  their  dominion  in  the  Adriatic.  Leo  VI,  how- 
ever, lost  considerable  territory  to  the  Saracens,  but  in  961 
Nicephorus  Phocas  regained  Crete  and  then  Cilicia  and  part 
of  Syria  as  well.  John  Zimisces,  who  followed  Phocas.  is 
remembered  by  his  victory  in  the  battle  at  Silistria  over  the 
Russians  who  had  invaded  the  Balkan  peninsula.  Basil  II, 
who  succeeded  him,  subjugated  the  various  Balkan  provinces, 
and  especially  all  eastern  and  western  Bulgaria,  establishing 
in  this  way  Greek  domination  over  the  Slavs.  Thereupon, 
he  turned  his  attention  to  the  eastern  frontier  and  conquered 
a  number  of  Armenian  provinces.  The  successors  of  Basil 
were  unworthy  of  the  throne  and  lost  most  of  the  provinces 
which  he  had  gained.  Some  towns  in  Syria  were  lost  during 
the  reign  of  the  Romans,  but  later,  under  Michael  the  Paph- 
lagonian,  the  Saracens  in  Syria  were  beaten  back    and  a 


THE   GRECIAN    PENINSULA  45 

Bulgarian  rebellion  was  suppressed.  But  Serbia  was  lost  to 
the  empire,  and  toward  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century  a 
new  foe  began  to  confront  the  Byzantines,  namely,  the 
Seljuk  Turks.  These  had  penetrated  Bagdad  and  overrun 
Armenia,  and  at  the  decisive  battle  of  Manzekert  (1071) 
gained  a  great  victory  over  the  forces  of  Romanus,  the  By- 
zantine emperor,  and,  indeed,  captured  the  emperor  himself. 
After  this  disaster,  Asia  Minor  was  lost,  and  the  emperors 
who  followed  proved  unable  to  stem  the  tide  of  demoraliza- 
tion and  decay. 

But  the  appearance  of  Alexius  Comnenus  on  the  scene 
changed  the  situation.  The  Normans  had  already  seized 
South  Italy  and  seemed  to  be  on  the  verge  of  extending  their 
conquests.  In  1081  the  Normans  laid  siege  to  Durazzo  on 
the  eastern  shores  of  the  Adriatic  and  defeated  Comnenus, 
who  had  hastened  to  the  assistance  of  the  native  population. 
Durazzo  fell  and  the  Normans  overran  Macedonia  and  de- 
scended into  Thessaly,  but  were  finally  defeated  by  the  Em- 
peror at  Larissa  and  forced  back.  Comnenus  was  compelled 
at  the  same  time  to  face  the  danger  coming  from  the  side  of 
the  Turks ;  the  latter  were  assaulting  Asia  Minor,  and  Com- 
nenus sought  aid  from  western  Europe.  The  European 
states  contributed  a  large  number  of  men,  who  began  de- 
scending toward  the  East  and  proclaiming  a  crusade  against 
the  Moslems;  by  the  assistance  of  these  Crusaders,  Com- 
nenus succeeded  in  securing  again  the  city  of  Nicaea  and 
many  of  the  provinces  of  Asia  Minor.  The  Crusaders  pro- 
ceeded to  Syria  and  captured  Antioch,  but  as  Comnenus  had 
failed  to  assist  them  in  the  siege,  they  refused  to  cede  the 
city  to  him,  but  on  the  contrary,  established  new  Frankish 
principalities  in  Syria  and  the  Kingdom  of  Jerusalem  as 
well. 

John,  the  son  of  Alexius  Comnenus,  continued  to  advance 


46  WAR  OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

in  Asia  at  the  expense  of  the  Turks.  He  reduced  the  prov- 
inces of  Cilicia,  Pisidia,  and  Pontus,  and  then  attacked  the 
Franks  in  Syria,  forcing  them  to  pay  him  tribute,  but  achiev- 
ing no  real  conquest.  Manuel,  the  son  of  John,  engaged 
in  a  whole  series  of  wars  which  weakened  the  economic 
foundations  of  the  Empire.  The  most  important  event  im- 
mediately following  is  the  Latin  conquest  of  Constantinople. 
During  the  reign  of  the  two  Angeli  brothers,  the  empire 
deteriorated  both  externally  and  internally.  Cyprus  and 
Bulgaria  were  lost  after  prolonged  wars ;  in  1203,  the  Cru- 
saders, restless  for  adventures,  were  requested  by  Alexius 
Angelus,  an  exiled  prince,  to  rescue  his  father  from  the 
clutches  of  the  emperor,  Alexius  III.  Fascinated  by  the 
prospects  of  Byzantine  gold,  the  Latin  Crusaders  undertook 
an  expedition,  crossed  the  Dardanelles  and  laid  siege  to 
Constantinople.  The  emperor  did  not  oppose  their  advance, 
because  he  trusted  to  the  strength  of  his  fortifications.  But 
his  expectations  were  disappointed  and  the  Venetians 
stormed  the  walls  and  captured  the  city.  But  young  Alexius, 
who  now  ascended  the  throne,  did  not  fulfill  his  pledges  to 
the  Crusaders,  and  the  latter,  enraged,  made  a  plot  to  put 
an  end  to  the  Byzantine  Empire.  They  captured  the  city 
for  a  second  time  and  sacked  it ;  then,  they  set  to  partition- 
ing the  Empire  among  themselves.  The  Byzantine  aristoc- 
racy at  this  time  rallied  at  Nicaea  and  in  1206  elected  Theo- 
dore Lascaris,  from  the  imperial  line,  as  emperor.  His 
kingdom  grew  and  in  1261  the  emperor  Michael  Paleologus 
captured  the  city  of  Constantinople  from  the  Latins.  But 
Michael  never  recovered  Northern  Thrace  and  Macedonia, 
both  of  which  had  fallen  into  the  power  of  the  Bulgarians, 
nor  Albania;  Greece  proper,  too,  remained  outside  his 
dominion. 

Toward  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century,  trouble  began 
with  the  Ottoman  Turks.    The  latter,  failing  at  first  in  their 


THE   GRECIAN    PENINSULA  47 

attempt  to  storm  the  walls  of  either  Constantinople  or  of 
Adrianople,  ravaged  Macedonia  and  Thessaly  and  conquered 
Greece.  At  about  the  same  time,  the  provinces  in  Asia  Minor 
were  finally  lost  by  the  Byzantines,  having  fallen  into  the 
hands  of  the  Seljuk  Turks.  The  Ottomans  operated  in 
the  borderland  of  Bithynia  and  Mysia  and  captured  the  city 
of  Brusa  (1326),  after  a  siege  which  lasted  ten  years.  In 
the  meantime,  the  Servian  power  was  on  the  ascent,  and  in 
1330  the  Servians  crushed  the  Bulgarians.  But  in  1387 
the  Servian  power  in  its  turn  was  crushed  by  the  Ottomans, 
and  the  latter  were  now  left  in  practically  sole  possession 
of  the  field.  Thrace  had  been  captured  a  little  earlier  and 
a  defeat  of  the  Byzantines  at  Adrianople  at  1361  left  the 
emperor  powerless  and  at  the  mercy  of  the  Ottoman  invader. 
Murad,  sultan  of  the  Ottomans,  extended  his  borders  to  the 
Balkans  in  the  north,  annexed  large  territory  in  Asia  Minor 
from  the  Seljuks  and  made  John  Paleologus,  the  Byzantine 
Emperor,  his  vassal.  Murad  had  had  the  chance  of  attack- 
ing Constantinople,  just  after  his  victory  at  Adrianople, 
but  had  not  used  the  chance.  But  nine  years  later,  Moham- 
med, the  Conqueror,  his  successor,  .marched  toward  Con- 
stantinople and  laid  siege  to  the  city  in  the  spring  of  1453, 
with  an  army  of  150,000.  The  emperor,  Constantine  XI, 
possessed  few  men  under  his  control ;  however,  two  Genoese 
vessels  arrived  with  400  cuirassiers,  from  outside,  and  more- 
over the  resident  foreigners  contributed  to  the  best  of  their 
ability  in  the  resistance  against  the  enemy.  But  opposition 
was  unavailing;  the  walls  were  stormed,  Constantine  was 
killed,  and  the  city  was  captured  (May  30,  1453).  The 
fall  of  Constantinople  was  at  the  same  time  the  last  act  in 
the  dissolution  of  the  Byzantine  Empire.  Thereafter,  author- 
ity passed  completely  into  the  hands  of  the  Ottoman  Empire. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  ITALIAN  PENINSULA. 

Certain  resemblances  are  noticeable  between  the  develop- 
ment of  the  first  and  second  war  centers  of  Europe.  In 
both  peninsulas  there  were  a  good  many  different  tribes  of 
various  races  and  forms  of  speech  before  they  became 
welded  together  into  larger  bodies ;  so  that  their  early  con- 
flicts for  supremacy  were  much  alike,  as  were  the  political 
changes  finally  resulting  in  the  dominancy  of  a  single  tribe. 
Their  religious  ideas  were  much  the  same — idealizations  of 
the  forces  of  nature,  differing  chiefly  in  the  names  assumed 
for  the  different  gods  and  goddesses.  In  both,  too,  political 
leaders  arose  with  similar  ambitions,  aims  and  purposes; 
and  the  dominant  power  in  each  peninsula  passed  through 
similar  stages  of  struggle,  supremacy,  decay,  and  dissolution. 

In  beginning  the  historical  sketch,  we  will  have  to  refer 
to  mythical  tradition  to  a  large  extent. 

More  than  four  centuries  before  the  brothers  Romulus 
and  Remus  had  been  even  suckled  by  the  wolf,  the  brazen 
statue  of  which  now  stands  in  the  city  of  Rome,  one  Aeneas, 
a  Trojan  hero,  is  said  to  have  escaped  after  the  capture  of 
Troy,  and,  guided  by  the  star  of  his  mother  Venus,  to  have 
landed  on  the  western  shore  of  Italy  with  a  band  of  Trojans, 
where  he  founded  the  kingdom  of  Latium  and  where  the 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  49 

omens  assured  him  a  great  empire  would  be  developed. 
After  some  three  centuries  had  passed,  in  the  fifteenth  gen- 
eration of  descendants,  one  Amulius  usurped  the  throne 
of  his  brother  Numitor ;  and  to  make  his  line  the  more  secure, 
the  usurper  forced  his  brother's  daughter,  Rhea  Silvia,  to 
become  a  vestal  virgin  under  a  vow  of  chastity.  But  Mars, 
the  god  of  war,  indignant  at  such  treachery,  seems  to  have 
taken  an  interest  in  the  matter,  and  Rhea  Silvia  became  the 
mother  of  twin  boys,  Romulus  and  Remus.  Unfortunately 
the  wicked  Amulius  had  the  mother  slain  or  thrown  into 
prison  and  the  infants  set  afloat  in  a  trough  on  the  Tiber. 
But  the  Tiber  overflowed  its  banks,  and,  the  cradle  catching 
in  the  roots  of  a  wild  fig-tree  near  Mount  Palatine,  a  she- 
wolf  overheard  the  baby's  cries,  rescued  and  carried  them  to 
her  den  and  nourished  them  with  her  own  milk. 

A  shepherd  of  the  king  who  subsequently  discovered  the 
fate  of  Rhea  Silvia  found  the  infants  and  carried  them  to 
his  home.  When  nearly  grown,  he  told  them  the  story  of 
their  birth.  Whereupon  they  slew  their  great  uncle  Amulius, 
and  restored  their  grandfather  Numitor  to  the  throne.  Then 
they  resolved  to  build  a  city  at  the  very  place  where  they 
were  so  near  being  drowned.  There  were  seven  great  hills 
in  that  vicinity.  Remus  selected  the  Aventine  Hill,  and 
Romulus  the  Palatine.  To  settle  the  question,  pursuant  to 
the  grandfather's  advice,  they  watched  for  omens,  each 
standing  on  his  hill.  Remus  saw  six  vultures  flying  in  the 
air,  but  Romulus  saw  twelve;  and  so  the  site  of  the  future 
city  was  located  on  the  Palatine  hill  and  Romulus  designated 
as  king.  According  to  custom,  having  yoked  a  bull  and 
a  pure  white  heifer  to  a  plow,  he  traced  a  furrow  around 
the  hill  by  which  to  locate  the  boundaries  of  the  city;  and 
soon  rude  protecting  walls  were  rising.  Remus  derisively 
leaped  over  the  wall,  whereupon  his  brother  struck  him  dead, 


50  WAR  OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

exclaiming:  "So  perish  all  who  leap  over  the  walls  of  my 
city!" 

This  is  said  to  have  occurred  in  735  B.  C,  Anno  urbis 
conditae,  from  which  the  Romans  fixed  their  dates  as  A.  U. 
C. ;  and,  if  these  accounts  are  true,  it  is  seen  that  Rome  had 
its  inception  in  war  through  tragic  family  combats;  while, 
if  not  true,  they  at  least  indicate  the  combative  tendencies 
of  the  minds  in  which  these  tales  originated. 

Of  a  similar  character  was  the  next  step  in  the  genetic 
development  of  the  city  and  people.  The  followers  of  Romu- 
lus were  regarded  by  the  neighboring  tribes,  it  appears,  as 
robbers  and  outlaws,  so  that  no  head  of  a  family  would  per- 
mit his  daughter  to  marry  among  them.  The  Sabine  nation 
were  nearest  and  accordingly  Romulus  and  his  band  ar- 
ranged a  plan  to  secure  wives  en  masse.  A  feast  in  honor 
of  Neptune  was  announced,  with  games  and  dances;  and 
this  was  attended  very  generally  by  the  Sabine  families. 
When  at  the  height  of  the  revelry,  the  Romans  to  the  number 
of  683,  if  we  may  believe  the  accounts,  each  seized  a  Sabine 
girl  and  bore  her  away  to  his  house.  According  to  the  cus- 
tom, the  girl,  having  received  a  ring  and  having  passed  the 
sheepskin  on  the  threshhold — indicating  that  her  duty  would 
be  to  spin  her  husband's  wool — became  the  latter's  wife. 
How  Romulus,  with  Hersilia  and  the  rest  of  his  followers, 
set  up  housekeeping,  while  some  two  years  later  Tatius, 
king  of  the  Sabines,  led  his  army  against  the  Romans  to 
recover  the  girls;  how  Tarpeia  was  slain  by  the  very  gifts 
she  coveted — the  shields  of  the  Sabines — as  the  reward  for 
her  treason;  how  Romulus  and  the  Sabines  became  one 
nation,  and  Romulus  finally  was  taken  up  in  a  storm  of 
thunder  and  lightning,  by  his  father  Mars,  the  god  of  war, 
to  reign  with  the  celestials,  where  he  was  worshipped  by 
the  Romans  under  the  name  of  Quirinus,  are  tales  of  the 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  51 

same  general  order,  and,  whether  fabulous  or  true,  involve 
the  element  and  idea  of  war. 

So  during  the  terms  of  all  the  succeeding  generations, 
from  the  peaceful  reign  of  Numa  Pompilius,  715  B.  C...  to 
the  expulsion  of  the  Tarquins,  509  B.  C,  when  the  consular 
government  began,  the  central  theme  seems  to  be  war — 
and  little  else  than  war.  Of  such  nature  are  the  tales  of 
the  Horatii  and  Curatii;  of  the  triple  murder  that  made 
Tarquinius  Superbus,  king;  of  the  treachery  of  his  son  in 
subduing  the  gabii;  and  of  the  suicide  of  Lucretia,  which 
caused  the  gates  to  be  shut  upon  Tarquin  and  resulted  in 
the  election  of  the  Consuls. 

The  most  conspicuous  events,  as  recorded  under  the  Re- 
public, were  of  a  warlike  character.  The  attempt  of  the 
Tuscan  king,  Lars  Porsena,  to  restore  Tarquin  to  the  throne 
of  Rome,  involves  a  justification  of  war.  Porsena's  troops 
forced  the  Romans  back  across  the  bridge  leading  to  the 
Janiculum  gate  upon  the  Tiber.  Leaving  three  men — Hora- 
tius,  Lartius,  and  Herminius — to  guard  the  outer  entrance  of 
the  bridge,  the  main  body  of  the  Roman  army  hastened 
across  to  destroy  it  by  cutting  away  the  timbers  underneath 
and  thus  to  prevent  the  passage  of  the  Tuscans. 

Sending  his  comrades  across  when  their  weapons  had 
given  out,  Horatius  kept  back  their  army  single-handed, 
crying  out,  according  to  the  poet : 

"For  how  can  man  die  better 
Than  by  facing  fearful  odds 

For  the  ashes  of  his  fathers 
And  the  temples  of  his  gods  ?" 

Then,  as  the  bridge  fell,  amidst  showers  of  weapons,  he 
plunged  into  the  Tiber  and  swam  across,  escaping  with  the 
loss  of  an  eye  and  a  maimed  foot  which  lamed  him  for  life. 


52  WAR  OR   A   UNITED   WORLD 

The  adventure  of  Cams  Mucius  or  Scaevola,  the  left-handed, 
in  the  enemies'  camp,  the  battle  at  Lake  Regillus,  where  Tar- 
quin  was  assisted  by  the  Latins,  but  the  Romans  by  Castor 
and  Pollux,  and  death  of  Tarquin,  if  legendary,  also  partake 
of  the  same  strenuous  character. 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  Empire,  or  the  battle  of  Pharsalia, 
45  B.  C,  there  existed  almost  continual  warfare.  This  was 
of  three  general  classes:  Struggles  for  social  equality  or 
supremacy  between  the  plebeians  and  patricians ;  contests  f  or 
supremacy  between  the  tribes  of  the  peninsula,  and  foreign 
wars  of  conquest,  or  for  the  purpose  of  repelling  invaders. 
The  union  of  the  Romans  and  Sabines  was  followed  by  the 
admixture  of  a  third  people,  probably  the  Etruscans  or  Tus- 
cans, who  had  settled  upon  the  Caelian  hill.  These,  with  the 
Romans  upon  the  Palatine  hill  and  Sabines  upon  the  Quir- 
inal,  united  under  the  kings,  and  a  temple  to  Jupiter  was 
built  on  the  Capitoline  hill,  one  to  Diana  on  the  Aventine 
hill,  while  a  single  fortification  was  made  to  encompass  the 
seven  hills,  including  the  Esquiline  and  Viminal.  In  time 
those  settled  here  formed  an  aristocratic  class  of  old  Roman 
families.  In  their  system,  a  group  of  early  families  de- 
scended from  a  common  ancestor  formed  a  gens  and  each 
gens  was  governed  by  a  chief  (decurio),  who  performed  the 
rites  in  religion  and  led  in  warfare.  Each  gens  belonged  to 
a  larger  group  called  a  curia,  while  the  united  curiae  made 
up  the  tribe.  Under  the  kings  each  of  the  three  tribes  had 
one  hundred  representative  members  in  the  assembly  and 
only  members  of  these  tribes  could  vote  or  be  elected.  So 
it  came  about  at  the  beginning  of  the  consular  government 
that  a  great  number  of  persons  from  other  cities  who  had 
settled  in  Rome,  because  not  belonging  to  the  old  families 
possessed  no  political  rights.  They  were  called  plebeians  and 


THE    ITALIAN    PENINSULA  53 

could  not  vote,  hold  office  or  marry  into  patrician  families, 
though  they  were  allowed  to  hold  property  of  their  own. 

This  state  of  things  naturally  resulted  in  the  merging  of 
a  class  struggle  between  the  patricians  and  plebeians,  espe- 
cially as  in  the  outset  one  of  the  rights  withheld  from  a  ple- 
beian was  permission  to  serve  in  the  army.  This  was  one  of 
the  earliest  rights,  however,  extended  to  the  lower  classes. 

A  considerable  part  of  the  history  of  Rome  refers  to  these 
struggles.  Many  of  the  Romans  in  those  days  had  small 
farms  in  the  country,  which  they  worked  with  the  aid  of 
their  children  and  slaves.  Often  they  ran  into  debt  for  lands 
or  to  improve  what  they  possessed.  Plebeians  thus  had  fre- 
quently to  borrow  money  from  patricians.  The  Roman  law 
was  severe  on  the  debtor.  Not  only  could  his  lands  be  seized 
in  default  of  payment,  but  he  himself  could  be  thrown  into 
prison  or  sold  into  slavery.  His  wife  and  children  could  be 
sold  also,  and  if  creditors  demanded  it,  the  man  himself 
could  be  cut  into  pieces  and  the  fragments  apportioned  out 
according  to  the  debts. 

Under  Servius  Tullius  (567  B.  C),  plebeians  were  ad- 
mitted to  a  restricted  suffrage,  but  at  the  beginning  of  the 
republic  the  common  people,  on  account  of  the  almost  con- 
stant wars  waged,  found  themselves  overwhelmed  with  debt, 
their  homes  and  fields  sold,  and  themselves  often  maltreated 
by  pitiless  creditors.  Driven  to  desperation,  they  openly 
resisted,  and  one  of  these  debtors,  a  brave  centurion,  escap- 
ing from  prison,  ran  into  the  Forum  in  chains  with  his  rags 
hanging  about  him  and  demanded  of  the  astonished  judges 
and  people  if  it  was  just  that  one  who  had  committed  no 
crime  should  be  subjected  to  such  treatment?  On  this  the 
plebeians  withdrew  from  the  city  in  a  body  to  the  Sacred 
Mount.  The  Senate  was  alarmed  and  sent  ten  deputies  with 
a  consul,  Menenius  Agrippa,  who  persuaded  them  to  return 


54  WAR  OR  A  UNITED   WORLD 

by  relating  the  allegory  of  the  stomach  and  the  revolt  of  the 
other  organs  of  the  body. 

In  494  B.  C,  a  solemn  compact  was  entered  into  to  the 
effect  that  the  debts  of  all  insolvent  persons  should  be  can- 
celed, and  those  imprisoned  for  debt  released.  Also,  in  or- 
der to  protect  the  plebeians  from  oppression,  two  officers — 
tribunes  of  the  people,  they  were  called — were  appointed 
from  the  plebeians  themselves,  with  the  power  to  "veto"  or 
forbid  the  act  of  a  magistrate  which  bore  unjustly  upon  the 
conduct  or  fate  of  any  citizen.  Another  political  advance 
was  the  organization  of  a  permanent  assembly  of  the  ple- 
beians called  by  the  tribunes,  who  could  there  discuss  the  in- 
terest of  the  people.  After  472  B.  C,  plebeian  assemblies 
had  the  right  to  elect  their  own  tribunes  and  aediles.  These 
tribunes  were  chosen  for  one  year,  and  their  number  was 
later  increased  to  ten.  Rome,  under  the  Republic,  was  thus 
divided  into  two  camps — one  of  plebeians,  directed  by  the 
tribunes,  and  the  other  of  patricians,  with  the  senate  and  con- 
suls at  their  head. 

As  illustrating  the  power  of  the  tribunes,  we  cite  the  story 
of  Coriolanus,  a  story  which  later  formed  the  basis  of  a 
Shakespearian  drama.  Coriolanus  was  a  young  patrician  es- 
teemed for  his  courage  and  ability.  His  surname,  Corio- 
lanus, was  due  to  his  capture  of  Corioli,  a  city  of  the  Vol- 
scians,  a  tribe  dwelling  south  of  Latium.  On  the  economic 
question  he  warmly  supported  the  authority  of  the  senate, 
and  his  attitude  so  irritated  the  tribunes  that  they  sentenced 
him  to  exile.  Going  among  his  former  enemies,  the  Volsci, 
he  soon  returned  at  the  head  of  a  powerful  army  and  de- 
manded the  surrender  of  Rome.  Deputies  were  immediately 
sent  to  recall  Coriolanus  from  banishment  and  to  make 
peace.  Despite  their  abject  entreaties  he  disdained  to  listen. 
Great  was  the  city's  alarm.     At  this   juncture,   Veturia, 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  55 

mother  of  Coriolanus,  with  his  wife,  Volumnia,  and  her  two 
children,  followed  by  many  noble  matrons,  set  out  from  the 
city  and  advanced  to  the  camp  of  the  Volsci.  The  spectacle 
of  the  pleading  mother  at  her  son's  feet  was  more  than  he 
could  resist. 

"What  is  it  you  do?"  he  cried,  as  he  assisted  her  to  rise. 
"You  have  saved  Rome,  but  lost  your  son." 

Returning  to  the  Volsci,  it  is  reported  that  the  commander 
of  the  latter,  Tullus,  angry  and  disappointed,  stirred  up  a 
tumult  against  Coriolanus  and  he  was  killed  by  the  people. 

Another  patrician  of  the  Quinctian  family,  Cincinnatus, 
was  regarded  in  his  day  as  the  ablest  and  bravest  of  the  Ro- 
mans. It  happened  that  his  son,  Kaeso,  had  fled  from  the 
country,  having  been  charged  by  the  tribunes  with  murder, 
which  so  affected  the  father  that  he  confined  himself  to  his 
little  farm  on  the  banks  of  the  Tiber.  The  Volsci  and  Equi 
joined  to  capture  the  Roman  city  and  were  almost  at  its 
gates.  In  such  urgent  perils  it  was  the  custom  to  appoint  a 
dictator,  and,  though  not  present,  Quintius  Cincinnatus  was 
made  Dictator,  and  messengers  sent  to  notify  him.  They 
found  him  on  his  farm  guiding  his  plow.  On  being  in- 
formed of  his  election,  he  said  to  his  wife : 

"Racilia,  bring  me  my  toga !" 

Going  speedily  to  Rome  and  appointing  an  experienced 
old  soldier,  Lucius  Tarquitius,  general  of  horse,  Cincinnatus 
thoroughly  conquered  the  invading  tribes,  and  in  sixteen 
days  resigned  and  went  back  to  his  plow,  asking  as  his  only 
reward  that  his  son  be  pardoned  and  recalled  from  banish- 
ment.   This  was  done. 

There  was  always  more  or  less  dissension  between  ple- 
beians and  patricians  and  their  representatives.  In  454  B.  C, 
a  tribune,  Icilius,  succeeded  in  securing  the  Aventine  hill  for 
the  plebeians,  and  in  450,  ten  commissioners  were  appointed 


56  WAR  OR  A   UNITED    WORLD 

for  a  year,  called  decemviri,  to  draw  up  a  system  of  laws. 
Moderate  at  first,  all  the  other  magistrates  having  been 
abolished,  the  decemviris  became  tyrannical  later,  as  is  il- 
lustrated in  the  case  of  one  of  them,  Appius  Claudius.  Hav- 
ing conceived  a  criminal  passion  for  a  plebeian  schoolgirl  of 
fifteen,  whom  he  accidentally  saw,  named  Virginia,  and  de- 
siring to  get  her  into  his  power,  he  made  the  claim  that  she 
was  one  of  his  slaves,  and  had  her  seized.  How  her  father, 
Virginius,  returning  from  the  army,  slew  his  daughter  in 
the  place  of  trial  rather  than  permit  Appius,  as  judge,  to 
gain  her  on  perjured  testimony,  is  one  of  the  bloody  re- 
minders of  the  execution  of  justice  in  that  period. 

Repeated  acts  of  tyranny  led  to  the  demand  for  written 
laws  which  resulted  in  the  formulation  of  a  code  called  the 
Twelve  Tables,  forming  the  basis  of  the  most  important 
system  of  law  probably  ever  given  to  the  world.  In  prin- 
ciple the  code  recognized  the  equality  of  all  citizens  without 
respect  to  persons,  but,  as  it  forbade  marriage  between  patri- 
cians and  plebeians  and  excluded  the  latter  from  holding 
high  offices,  further  changes  were  sought  and  made. 

Under  the  consuls  Valerius  and  Horatius  (448  B.  C.) 
the  assembly  was  given  power  to  make  laws  binding  upon  all 
the  people,  plebeians  and  patricians  alike,  and  a  law  (lex  Can- 
uleia)  was  passed  445  B.  C,  granting  the  right  of  inter- 
marriage between  the  two  orders,  thus  through  social  equal- 
ization, paving  the  way  to  political  equality. 

As  just  law  may  be  regarded  as  the  antagonist  of  dissen- 
sion and  war,  so  the  development  of  law  in  the  Roman  state 
may  be  considered  in  some  slight  degree  as  reacting  against 
warfare. 

The  earliest  wars,  as  we  have  seen,  took  place  among  the 
tribes  of  the  peninsula — the  Romans,  Sabines,  and  a  third 
people  called  Luceres,  some  of  whom  occupied  the  Caelian 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  57 

hill,  believed  to  be  Latins  or  Etruscans.  The  Etruscans  held 
all  the  territory  originally  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Tiber, 
known  as  Etruria.  With  the  Etruscan  wars  is  entwined  the 
tale  of  the  Fabians,  among  the  most  famous  of  Roman  pa- 
tricians. Having  undertaken  to  wage  war  against  the  Tus- 
cans alone  and  at  their  own  expense,  with  the  exception  of 
one  person,  three  hundred  Fabians  were  utterly  destroyed 
by  the  Tuscans  at  Cremera,  477  B.  C. 

One  of  the  earliest  sieges  of  historic  authenticity  was  that 
of  the  Etruscan  city,  Veii,  located  on  the  Cremera  branch  of 
the  Tiber,  possessing  walls  so  strong  that  it  was  impossible 
to  destroy  or  penetrate  them.  About  this  time  (405  B.  C.) 
Roman  soldiers  were  first  granted  pay  for  their  services,  and 
the  city  was  continuously  invested  for  ten  years  (405-396  B. 
C. )  for  the  purpose  of  starving  the  inhabitants  into  submis- 
sion, and  was  finally  captured  by  Camillus,  who  had  been  ap- 
pointed dictator.  This  victory  aroused  the  enemies  of  Ca- 
millus to  envy  and  to  forestall  their  action  the  senate  au- 
thorized him  to  besiege  another  Etruscan  city,  Falerii,  which 
the  inhabitants  surrendered  through  a  curious  incident.  A 
Falerian  schoolmaster  treacherously  led  the  children  of  the 
chief  families  into  the  Roman  camp  and  offered  to  surrender 
them  as  hostages,  but  this  act  so  disgusted  Camillus  that 
he  ordered  the  man  to  be  flogged  by  his  own  pupils.  When 
the  parents  heard  of  Camillus'  action  they  spontaneously 
opened  their  gates  to  him. 

Nevertheless  he  was  forced  into  voluntary  exile  by  his 
enemies,  and  is  said  to  have  expressed  the  wish  that  the 
gods  might  reduce  them  to  the  necessity  of  regreting  his 
absence. 

Whether  his  prayer  was  of  any  avail  or  not,  scarcely  had 
he  gone  when  Rome  found  itself  in  a  desperate  encounter 
with  the  Gauls.     The  Tuscan  city  of  Clusium  having  been 


58  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

attacked  by  them,  the  Tuscans  applied  to  the  Romans  for 
aid.  Three  Fabian  ambassadors  were  sent  to  the  Gauls  to 
arrange  a  peace,  and  in  the  interview  one  of  the  Fabians  so 
far  forgot  his  character  as  to  kill  one  of  the  Gauls.  Where- 
upon the  Gauls,  abandoning  their  attack  on  Clusium, 
marched  upon  Rome.  Unskilled  generals  are  blamed  for  the 
defeat  of  the  Roman  troops  at  the  little  river  Alia  and  the 
capture  of  Rome,  which,  after  three  days  spent  in  sacking  it, 
the  barbarians  set  on  fire  and  reduced  to  a  mass  of  ruins 
(390  B.  C). 

According  to  Livy,  Camillus  liberated  Rome  and  was 
hailed  as  its  second  founder,  while  Manlius,  who  had  saved 
the  senate  building — being  awakened  by  the  cackling  of 
geese — was  accused  of  aspiring  to  absolute  power,  despite 
the  fact  that  he  sold  his  estates  and  rescued  more  than  four 
hundred  of  his  fellow  citizens  from  imprisonment  by  lend- 
ing them  money  without  interest ;  despite  all  this  he  was  ac- 
cused of  being  a  social  agitator  and  conspirator  and  thrown 
as  a  traitor  from  Tarpeian  rock.  But,  according  to  other 
historians,  the  Gauls  retained  their  hold  over  Rome  for  some 
fifty  years. 

However,  Rome  rose  from  its  ashes,  raised  new  armies 
and  quickly  proceeded  to  defeat  her  old  enemies,  the  Vol- 
scians,  Aequians  and  Tuscans,  who  had  tried  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  her  distress.  Many  towns  of  Latium  were 
brought  under  subjection  and  afforded  homes  for  the  Roman 
poor.  About. this  time  (367  B.  C.),  under  the  leadership 
of  C.  Lucinius  Stolo  and  L.  Sextius,  the  Lucinian  laws  were 
enacted  regulating  the  loaning  of  money,  distribution  and 
use  of  the  land,  doing  away  with  military  tribunes,  and  pro- 
viding that  one  of  the  consuls  should  thereafter  be  a  plebeian. 
Sextius,  tribune  of  the  people,  was  the  first  to  receive  this 
honor. 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  59 

From  now  on,  for  nearly  eighty  years,  Rome  was  engaged 
in  wars  relating  chiefly  to  the  conquest  of  the  peninsula.  To 
accomplish  this  she  had  not  only  to  conquer  the  Etruscans 
and  keep  back  the  roving  Gauls  to  the  north,  but  to  subdue 
the  Oscians  inhabiting  the  country  south  from  Latium  along 
the  western  coast,  and  including  the  Aequians,  the  Herni- 
cans,  and  the  Volscians.  Also  the  Sabellians,  living  east  and 
south  of  the  Latins  and  Oscans,  along  the  ridges  and  slopes 
of  the  Apennines,  including  the  Samnites,  Marsians,  Picen- 
tians,  Frentani,  Apulians,  Lucanians,  and  the  Bruttians. 

The  Samnites  were  the  most  warlike  people  of  central 
Italy,  and  had  taken  Capua  from  the  Etruscans,  and  Cumae 
from  the  Greek  colonists,  and  were  extending  into  Cam- 
pania. The  Campanians  appealed  to  Rome  for  help,  prom- 
ising to  become  Roman  subjects.  Though  then  at  peace  with 
the  Samnites,  Rome  sent  two  armies  into  the  field,  one  to 
protect  Campania  and  the  other  to  invade  Samnium.  The 
first  army  encountered  the  Samnites  at  Mt.  Gaurus,  near 
Cumae,  and  was  victorious,  driving  the  enemy  toward  the 
mountains,  where  the  Samnites  rallied  near  Suessula,  and 
where  they  were  again  defeated  by  the  combined  Roman 
armies. 

Shortly  after  this  the  Roman  soldiers  stationed  at  Capua 
for  the  winter  mutined  and  threatened  to  take  the  city  as 
their  share  of  the  conquest.  This  mutiny  spread  to  the 
Latins,  many  of  whom  were  soldiers  in  the  Roman  ranks. 
A  law  was  passed  assigning  regular  shares  in  the  booty  and 
regular  pay,  which  pacified  the  Roman  soldiers,  but  while 
the  mutiny  lasted  the  Latins  had  become  the  chief  defenders 
of  Campania  against  the  Samnites.  So  the  Campanians 
shared  the  defection  against  Rome.  Curiously  enough, 
Rome  now  made  a  treaty  with  the  Samnites,  her  recent 
enemies,  and  with  them  attacked  her  former  allies,  the  Lat- 


60  WAR  OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

ins  and  Campanians,  whom  she  had  been  defending.  At  the 
battle  fought  on  the  slopes  of  Mt.  Vesuvius  (339  B.  C),  the 
Latins  were  defeated,  and  the  towns  of  Tibur,  Praeneste, 
Aricia,  Lanuvium,  Velitrae,  and  Antium  were  conquered  in 
quick  succession.  The  last  city,  Pedum,  surrendered  in  the 
third  year  of  the  war  and  the  revolt  thus  came  to  an  end. 

The  Samnites  were  jealous  of  the  Roman  increase  in 
power  and  desired  to  gain  supremacy,  but  were  themselves 
threatened  in  the  south  by  a  new  enemy,  the  Greeks,  who 
were  aiding  the  people  of  Tarentum  and  sought  to  extend 
their  colonies.  The  twin  cities  of  Paleopolis  (old  city),  and 
Neapolis  (new  city),  in  Campania,  though  still  in  the  hands 
of  the  Greeks,  were  under  the  protection  of  the  Samnites,  and 
as  many  disputes  arose  between  the  Roman  settlers  and  the 
people  of  these  cities,  a  second  war  broke  out  between  the 
Romans  and  Samnites  (326  B.  C),  which  continued  for 
twenty-two  years.  The  Romans  demanded  the  withdrawal 
of  the  Samnite  garrison,  and,  on  being  refused,  besieged 
Paleopolis,  which  soon  yielded  to  the  army  of  Q.  Publilius 
Philo.  After  capturing  the  strong  city  of  Luceria  in  Apulia, 
the  Apulians,  and  also  the  Lucanians,  joined  the  Romans  as 
allies. 

However,  in  the  fifth  year  of  the  war,  321  B.  C,  the  Ro- 
mans met  with  a  terrible  defeat.  A  false  report  being  cir- 
culated that  the  city  of  Luceria  was  being  besieged  by  the 
Samnites,  an  army  was  hastily  sent  to  the  city's  relief.  In 
passing  a  defile  in  the  mountains  near  Caudium,  the  whole 
Roman  army  was  entrapped  and  captured  by  the  Samnite 
general,  Pontius,  who  consulted  his  father  as  to  the  best  dis- 
position to  make  of  the  Romans.  The  old  man  said :  "Either 
free  them  honorably  and  thus  gain  their  friendship,  or  put 
them  all  to  the  sword  and  thus  cripple  Rome."  Instead  of 
doing  either,  the  Roman  soldiers,  stripped  of  arms  and  most 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  61 

of  their  clothing,  were  made  to  pass  under  the  yoke  and  the 
consuls  to  agree  to  give  up  all  the  territory  taken,  in  the  be- 
lief that  such  a  course  would  end  the  war. 

But  the  Roman  Senate  disavowed  the  treaty  and  thus  af- 
forded a  peculiar  example  of  perfidy,  often  met  with  in  di- 
plomacy, especially  as  the  generals  are  said  to  have  urged 
this  course  on  the  Senate.  The  consuls  who  had  made  this 
unfortunate  treaty  were,  however,  handed  over  to  the  Sam- 
nites  to  be  treated  as  the  latter  might  choose. 

The  Senate  appointed  new  consuls,  Papirius  Cursor  and 
Publius,  the  best  warriors  of  the  republic,  and  sent  them  at 
the  head  of  new  armies  against  the  Samnites,  and  the  fol- 
lowing year  (320  B.  C.)  defeated  them  at  Luceria.  Rome 
now  anticipated  immediate  success,  but  in  this  she  was  dis- 
appointed. The  enemy  had  been  active  in  securing  allies. 
Nearly  all  the  cities  in  Campania  revolted.  The  Samnites 
recaptured  Luceria  and  also  Fregallae  on  the  Liris,  and 
gained  an  important  victory  near  Anxur  in  southern  Latium. 
Besides,  the  Etruscans  revolted  and  attacked  the  Roman  gar- 
rison at  Sutrium.  It  required  several  years  of  fighting  be- 
fore these  rebellions  were  thoroughly  checked.  After  the 
capture  of  Bovianum,  the  chief  city  of  the  Samnites,  peace 
was  declared,  and  this  troublesome  people  entered  into  an 
alliance  with  Rome. 

Where  old  enmities  exist  wars  develop  on  slight  provoca- 
tion, and  the  Samnites,  smarting  under  their  treatment,  soon 
managed  to  incite  the  Umbrians,  the  Etruscans  and  the  Gauls 
to  resist  the  common  enemy.  They  also  entered  into  a  com- 
pact with  the  Lucanians,  their  nearest  neighbors  to  the  south, 
who  had  been  allies  of  Rome  in  the  previous  war.  This  at- 
tempt of  the  Samnites  to  control  Lucania,  led  to  a  declara- 
tion of  war.  Rome  now  possessed  as  allies  the  Latins  and 
Volscians  and  also  the  Aequians  and  Marsians  on  the  east, 


62  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORLD 

and  the  Campanians  in  the  south.  Three  armies  were  placed 
in  the  field  by  the  Samnites,  one  to  defend  Samnium,  a  sec- 
ond to  invade  Campania,  and  a  third  to  enter  Etruria,  the 
last  being  expected  to  unite  with  the  Umbrians,  Etruscans 
and  Gauls,  and  attack  Rome  from  the  north. 

Rome  got  busy.  The  citizens  flew  to  arms.  A  strong 
force  moved  into  Etruria  under  the  consuls,  Q.  Fabius  Rul- 
lianus  and  Decius  Mus,  and  scattered  the  hostile  armies  be- 
fore they  were  fairly  united.  The  Gauls  and  Samnites  re- 
treated across  the  Apennines  to  Sentinum,  where  a  forti- 
fied camp  was  organized.  Upon  this  famous  field  the  fate 
of  Italy  was  settled  (298  B.  C). 

Fabius  commanded  the  right  wing  of  the  Romans  and 
Decius  Mus  the  left,  which  was  during  the  battle  driven  back 
by  a  terrific  charge  of  the  Gallic  war  chariots.  At  the  head 
of  his  troops  Decius,  following  the  example  of  his  father, 
sacrificed  himself  on  the  altar  of  death,  and  the  line  was  re- 
stored. A  decided  victory  for  the  Romans  followed.  Peace 
was  made  with  the  Etrurians  the  following  year,  and  later 
(283  B.  C.)  the  Samnites  and  Lucanians  submitted. 

All  governments  must  maintain  a  certain  dignity,  even 
republics,  and  the  citizens  of  Tarentum,  the  most  important 
of  the  Greek  cities  in  Italy,  having  insulted  a  Roman  am- 
bassador, Rome  declared  war  on  that  city.  At  this  time 
Pyrrhus  was  king  of  Epirus  in  Greece,  but  aspired  to  found 
an  empire  in  the  west.  The  Tarentines  appealed  to  Pyrrhus 
and  asked  the  Romans  to  accept  him  as  arbiter.  This  the 
Roman  consul,  Levinus,  already  in  territory  of  Tarentum,  re- 
fused to  do,  and  Pyrrhus,  the  ablest  general  of  his  time,  hav- 
ing landed  in  Italy  with  25,000  troops  and  twenty  elephants, 
marched  against  the  Romans.  The  armies  met  at  Heraclea, 
a  town  on  the  gulf  of  Taranto  not  far  from  Tarentum,  where 
for  the  first  time  the  Roman  legions  encountered  the  Mace- 


THE    ITALIAN    PENINSULA  63 

donian  phalanxes.  Seven  times  they  charged  without  break- 
ing the  phalanxes ;  when  Pyrrhus  turned  his  elephants  upon 
the  Roman  cavalry,  the  latter  fled  in  confusion  before  this 
unusual  attack.  The  victor's  losses  were  so  great,  however, 
that  he  sent  his  most  trusted  minister,  Cineas,  to  Rome  to 
propose  peace.  In  a  persuasive  speech  he  would  have  ef- 
fected this,  had  not  the  blind  old  censor,  Appius  Claudius, 
admonished  the  senate  never  to  make  peace  with  an  enemy 
on  Roman  soil. 

Supported  by  the  Greek  cities,  the  Bruttians,  the  Lucan- 
ians  and  even  some  of  the  Samnites,  Pyrrhus  advanced 
northward,  and  another  battle  was  fought  (279  B.  C.)  at 
Asculum  near  Luceria,  in  which  the  elephants  again  routed 
the  Romans,  but  with  great  losses  to  the  Greek  phalanxes. 
Leaving  his  general,  Milo,  at  Tarentum,  Pyrrhus  crossed 
over  to  Sicily  to  assist  the  Syracusans  against  the  Cartha- 
ginians, whom  he  succeeded  in  driving  into  their  stronghold, 
Lilybeum,  at  the  western  extremity  of  the  island,  but  failed 
to  capture  the  city,  and  called  upon  the  people  to  build  a  fleet. 
As  they  declined  to  do  this,  regarding  them  as  unworthy  of 
his  aid,  he  returned  to  Tarentum  with  the  end  of  subduing 
the  Romans. 

An  army  under  the  consul,  Curius  Dentatus,  was  en- 
trenched near  Beneventum,  among  the  hills  of  Samnium,  and 
Pyrrhus  decided  to  overwhelm  it  before  it  could  be  rein- 
forced. The  Romans  had  now  lost  their  fear  of  elephants, 
and  by  harrassing  them  in  the  charge  the  fury  of  the  bulky 
beasts  was  turned  toward  their  own  troops,  and  the  army  of 
Pyrrhus  was  forced  back  with  great  loss,  he  escaping  to 
Tarentum  with  a  small  body  of  horses,  and  thence  to  Greece. 

The  victory  at  Beneventum  (275  B.  C),  with  the  reduc- 
tion of  Tarentum  two  years  later,  ended  the  Tarentine  war. 
The  Lucanians,  Bruttians  and  revolting  Samnites  were  sub- 


64  WAR   OR   A   UNITED   WORLD 

dued ;  Ancona,  on  the  east,  the  chief  city  of  Picenum,  taken 
by  storm  (268  B.  C),  and  further  north  Ariminum,  the 
largest  city  in  Umbria,  was  taken  (266  B.  C.)  ;  at  this  time, 
the  subjection  of  Italy  seemed  complete.  A  spirit  of  revolt 
showing  itself  among  the  Etruscan  cities,  the  walls  of  the 
most  important,  Volsinii,  were  razed  to  the  ground,  and  its 
works  of  art  transferred  to  Rome,  whose  supremacy  was  now 
acknowledged  from  the  Macra  and  Rubicon  to  the  straits  of 
Sicily. 

The  supremacy  acquired  by  Rome,  as  in  the  case  of  every 
other  state  which  has  risen  from  primitive  conditions  to  im- 
portance, depended  very  largely  upon  the  disposition  and 
organization  of  its  army.  Under  the  kings,  especially  Ser- 
vius  Tullius,  the  army  had  been  made  the  principal  factor  in 
the  government.  Servius,  who  saw  the  need  of  having  ple- 
beians pay  taxes  and  perform  military  duty  the  same  as  the 
patricians,  after  dividing  the  territory  into  local  districts,  en- 
rolled every  able-bodied  man  as  subject  to  military  service. 
Thus  he  secured  eighteen  centuries  of  cavalry  (equites),  in- 
cluding young  wealthy  citizens,  and  one  hundred  and  sev- 
enty-five centuries  of  infantry  (pedites),  comprising  all 
others  capable  of  bearing  arms,  arranged  in  five  classes  ac- 
cording to  their  wealth,  as  each  individual  had  to  furnish  his 
own  weapons.  The  first  class  of  eighty  centuries  included 
those  who  could  afford  a  brass  shield  for  the  left  arm, 
greaves  for  the  legs,  a  cuirass  for  the  breast,  and  a  helmet 
for  the  head,  together  with  a  sword  and  spear.  The  second 
class  were  similarly  armed,  but  had  a  wooden  spear  covered 
with  leather.  The  third  differed  from  the  second  in  omitting 
the  greaves,  and  the  fourth  in  omitting  also  the  cuirass  and 
helmet,  while  the  fifth  and  poorest  fought  only  with  darts 
and  slings.     Except  the  first,  each  was  arranged  in  twenty 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  65 

centuries  or  companies,  and  one-half  in  each  class  ( juniores) 
were  young  men  who  might  be  called  at  any  time,  and  the 
other  half,  older  men  (seniores),  constituting  the  reserves. 
Besides  these  one  hundred  and  seventy-eight  centuries  there 
were  fifteen  centuries  of  carpenters,  musicians  and  substi- 
tutes. 

Now,  Rome  having  reached  the  importance  of  a  sovereign 
state  including  nearly  all  Italy,  with  colonies  along  the  sea 
coast,  Antium  and  Anxur  in  Latium,  Minturnae  in  the  Vol- 
scian  domain,  and  Sinuessa  in  Campania,  some  of  which  re- 
quired garrisons,  new  military  dispositions  and  methods  were 
instituted.  As  the  consuls  commanded,  in  time  of  war  it  was 
customary  to  raise  four  legions,  two  for  each  consul.  In 
each  legion  were  twenty  maniples  or  companies,  of  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty  men,  and  ten  maniples  of  sixty  men  each, 
making  3,000  heavy  armed  troops;  also  1,200  light  armed 
troops,  thus  making  4,200  infantry,  besides  a  troop  of  300 
horses,  were  usually  added. 

In  fighting,  after  the  time  of  Camillus  (391  B.  C),  in- 
stead of  the  solid  square  after  the  manner  of  the  Greek 
phalanx,  each  legion  was  drawn  up  in  three  lines  of  battle; 
in  front  young  men  (hastati)  with  javelins  to  be  hurled  at 
the  enemy  before  coming  to  close  quarters;  the  second  line 
(principes),  composed  of  experienced  soldiers,  were  armed 
similarly,  and  the  third  line  (triarii),  made  up  of  veterans, 
had  long  lances  in  place  of  javelins.  All  had  short  swords, 
and  for  defensive  armor,  a  brass  helmet  for  the  head, 
greaves  for  the  legs,  a  coat  of  mail  for  the  body  and  a  shield 
for  the  left  arm. 

Prowess  in  battle  was  stimulated  by  the  award  of  the 
"civic  crown"  of  oak  leaves  bestowed  by  the  general  in  the 
presence  of  the  whole  army,  and  by  the  presentation  of  ban- 
ners of  different  hues,  ornaments  and  golden  crowns,  the 


66  WAR  OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

highest  honor  for  a  general  being  a  triumphal  march  to  the 
Capitol  with  his  prisoners  and  trophies  of  war. 

The  strength  Rome  had  acquired  in  the  peninsula  con- 
tests was  now  to  be  used  in  other  directions  as  a  world 
power.  Two  other  nations  bordering  on  the  Mediterranean 
had  attained  to  the  rank  of  world  powers — Greece  and 
Carthage — and  Rome  undertook  to  subdue  them.  That  the 
proper  function  of  a  nation  is  war,  no  one  at  that  period 
could  well  have  questioned.  It  was  only  necessary  to  have 
a  pretext,  and  pretexts  are  easily  found  where  the  disposi- 
tion and  power  exists,  and  the  selfish  motive  is  generally 
distinguishable. 

When  the  Romans  were  warring  with  Pyrrhus,  the  Cartha- 
ginians sent  a  fleet  under  Mago  to  aid  them :  because  they 
desired  to  curtail  the  extension  of  Greek  dominion.  But  as 
Rome,  successful,  sought  to  extend  her  influence,  Carthage 
began  to  be  jealous  of  her.  Carthage  was  the  chief  mer- 
chant of  the  Mediterranean.  Her  marts  were  the  cities  of 
all  its  shores,  and  her  wares  the  products  of  those  cities  and 
of  other  parts  of  Europe,  consisting  of  tin  from  Britain, 
gold  from  Spain,  silver  from  the  Balearic  Isles,  linen  from 
Egypt,  frankincense  from  Arabia,  and  purple  dyes  from 
Tyre. 

The  first  Punic  war  was  really  a  contest  for  the  control 
of  the  island  of  Sicily,  then  divided  between  three  powers. 
Carthage  held  all  the  western  part,  including  the  cities  of 
Drepanum  and  Lilybaeum  on  the  west,  Agrigentum  on  the 
south,  and  Panormus  on  the  north ;  the  southeastern  section 
was  controlled  by  the  king  of  Syracuse,  and  the  northeastern 
by  Campanian  soldiers,  who  called  themselves  Sons  of  Mars 
or  Mamartines.  These  Mamartines,  having  committed  many 
robberies  and  having  murdered  some  of  the  citizens  of  Mes- 
sina, were  attacked  by  Hiero,  King  of  Syracuse,  who  laid 


THE    ITALIAN    PENINSULA  67 

siege  to  the  city.  The  Mamartines  asked  Rome  to  aid  them. 
The  question  of  assisting  these  robbers  as  against  Syracuse, 
a  friendly  power,  perplexed  the  Roman  senate ;  but  as  Car- 
thage would  undoubtedly  help  them  if  Rome  refused  and 
thus  get  control  of  the  territory,  it  was  decided  by  the  as- 
sembly to  help  the  Mamartines. 

During  the  delay  these  sons  of  Mars  had  invited  and  ad- 
mitted a  Carthaginian  garrison  into  the  city,  so  that  when 
the  Roman  army  under  Appius  Claudius  arrived  they  found 
the  Carthaginians  in  possession.  Claudius  regarded  this  as 
a  breach  of  faith,  and  at  a  conference  between  him  and  the 
Carthaginian  commander,  Hanno,  as  if  to  retaliate  in  kind, 
seized  and  imprisoned  the  latter.  Whereupon  Hanno,  to 
secure  his  liberty,  ordered  the  city  given  up,  and  the  Ro- 
mans took  possession.  For  this,  Hanno  was  crucified  upon 
his  return  home.  Hiero,  meanwhile,  having  formed  an  al- 
liance with  the  Carthaginians  to  expel  the  Romans  from  the 
island,  attacked  their  army.  But  the  allied  forces  under 
Hiero  were  defeated,  and  the  Romans  moved  across  the 
island,  capturing  town  after  town,  till  in  the  second  year  of 
the  war,  after  a  siege  of  seven  months,  Agrigentum  sur- 
rendered (262  B.  C),  next  to  Syracuse  the  most  important 
city  in  Sicily  and  the  seat  of  the  Carthaginian  arsenal. 

By  this  time  the  energies  of  the  two  nations  were  fully 
aroused  for  the  conflict,  but  they  were  separated  by  the  sea, 
and  the  Romans  saw  the  need  of  a  navy.  They  possessed  a 
few  triremes  with  three  banks  of  oars,  but  were  quite  unable 
to  cope  with  the  Carthaginian  ships,  quinquiremes,  with  five 
banks  of  oars.  A  Carthaginian  galley  stranded  on  the 
Italian  coast,  served  them  as  a  model,  and  they  went  to  work 
with  such  ardor  to  construct  a  fleet,  that  one  hundred  and 
twenty  vessels  were  built  in  two  months.  Besides  they  added 
an  improvement,  corvi,  or  grappling  bridges,  which  could  be 


68  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

dropped  at  close  quarters  on  an  enemy's  ship  and  enable  the 
Romans  to  board  it.  Soldiers  having  been  trained  into  oars- 
men by  means  of  rude  banks  of  benches  built  on  land,  the 
new  galleys  were  manned,  and  Duilius,  the  consul,  as  com- 
mander, went  in  search  of  the  Punic  fleet,  the  crews  of  which 
were  engaged  in  plundering  the  north  coast  of  Sicily.  Rely- 
ing on  their  long  experience  as  sailors,  the  coming  of  the 
Romans  was  hailed  with  satisfaction.  But  as  the  fleets  came 
together,  the  sudden  drop  of  the  grappling  bridges  and  the 
onslaught  of  the  boarders  surprised  them  and  their  defeat 
was  complete.  Fifty  of  the  Punic  vessels  were  sunk  or  cap- 
tured in  this  first  naval  battle  of  the  Romans,  which  occurred 
near  Mylae,  260  B.  C,  and  Duilius  was  given  a  magnificent 
triumph  at  Rome,  a  column  being  erected  in  the  Forum  dec- 
orated with  the  beaks  of  the  captured  galleys. 

Having  constructed  a  larger  fleet,  in  the  ninth  year  of  the 
war,  the  Romans  decided  to  invade  Africa.  Defeating  the 
Carthaginians'  squadron,  which  attempted  to  bar  their  way, 
off  the  promontory  of  Ecnomius,  on  the  southern  coast  of 
Sicily,  two  legions  under  L.  Manlius  Vulso  and  Regulus, 
landed  on  the  coast  east  of  Carthage,  captured  the  port  of 
Clypea,  and  proceeded  to  lay  waste  to  the  country.  A 
strange  omen  was  encountered  near  the  river  Bagrada,  con- 
sisting of  a  serpent  with  scales  which  no  dart  would  pierce. 
Finally  a  stone  hurled  from  a  catapult  broke  his  back,  and 
the  skin,  one  hundred  and  twenty  feet  long,  was  sent  to 
Rome  as  prophetic  of  a  lengthy  but  successful  war.  Their 
invasion  was  so  unobstructed  that  Vulso's  legion  was  re- 
called, and  Regulus  left  to  finish  the  work.  He  soon  cap- 
tured Tunis,  and  the  Carthaginians  sued  in  vain  for  peace; 
even  in  despair  throwing  some  of  their  children  into  the  altar 
fires  to  propitiate  their  god  Moloch.  Xanthippus,  a  Spartan 
soldier,  offered  to  take  command  of  their  army  and  was  ac- 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  69 

cepted.  Using  elephants,  he  defeated  the  Romans,  destroyed 
their  army  and  made  Rugulus  his  prisoner. 

The  war  dragged  along  for  several  years  in  Sicily  to  the 
advantage  of  the  Carthaginians,  when  the  capture  of  the 
city  of  Panormus,  with  the  Punic  army  and  one  hundred 
elephants,  turned  the  tide  of  conflict.  The  beasts  were  taken 
to  Italy  in  order  that  the  soldiers  might  learn  how  to  oppose 
as  well  as  manage  them  in  warfare. 

It  is  recorded  how  Regulus  about  this  time,  quite  in  con- 
trast to  the  many  perfidies  related,  came  to  Rome  to  offer 
terms  of  peace  for  Carthage,  though  himself  urging  the 
Senate  not  to  accept  them ;  and  then,  in  accord  with  his  word, 
returned  as  a  prisoner  to  the  Carthaginians  to  be  executed. 

In  Sicily  the  consul,  P.  Claudius,  failing  to  capture  Lily- 
baeum,  the  stronghold  of  Punic  power,  decided  to  destroy 
the  fleet  anchored  near  Dreanum,  but  impiously  disregarded 
the  auguries.  When  the  sacred  chickens  refused  to  eat, 
he  threw  them  into  the  sea,  exclaiming:  "Then  let  them 
drink !"  As  a  result,  as  was  then  believed,  he  was  defeated, 
with  a  loss  of  over  ninety  ships. 

Claudius  was  recalled  by  the  Senate  and  a  dictator  ap- 
pointed. In  fighting  Carthage,  Rome  had  now  lost  one- 
sixth  of  its  entire  population,  and  vast  treasure.  Wealthy 
citizens  advanced  the  money  to  build  a  fleet  of  two  hundred 
new  galleys,  which  were  placed  under  the  command  of  the 
consul  C.  Lutatius  Catalus.  A  decisive  victory  was  gained 
off  the  west  coast  of  Sicily  and  the  Carthaginians  were  com- 
pelled to  sue  for  peace.  They  surrendered  Sicily,  released 
all  Roman  prisoners  without  ransom,  and  agreed  to  pay 
3,200  talents  (about  $4,000,000)  within  ten  years.  Thus 
ended  the  first  Punic  war  in  241  B.  C. 

Sicily  was  the  first  Roman  province,  and  a  proprietor 
was  sent  to  levy  imposts,  administer  justice,  and,  if  necessary, 


70  WAR  OR  A  UNITED   WORLD 

command  the  army.  Later  this  title  seems  to  have  had  the 
force  of  our  English  kindred  word,  proprietor,  though 
changed  to  proconsul.  Strife  being  the  predominant  social 
element,  Carthage  now  had  to  fight  her  own  mercenaries, 
who,  not  having  secured  their  pay,  marched  against  the  city 
to  pillage  it.  The  Punic  general  Hamilcar  Barca,  engaged 
the  rebels,  surrounded  them,  and  exterminated  them  with 
such  cruelty  that  this  conflict  became  known  as  "the  Inexpia- 
ble War." 

Profiting  by  this  rebellion  of  the  mercenaries,  Rome 
seized  Corsica  and  Sardinia  which  had  also  belonged  to 
Carthage,  and  because  of  the  protest  of  Carthage,  imposed 
a  fine  of  1,200  talents  ($1,500,000),  which  the  latter  was 
obliged  to  pay.  Now  for  a  brief  period,  in  the  year  235 
B.  C,  the  temple  of  Janus  was  closed,  for  the  first  time  in 
437  years,  since  the  reign  of  Numa  Pompilius.  But  new 
opportunities  for  martial  valor  soon  presented  themselves. 
Illyrian  pirates  having  plundered  some  Greek  cities  about 
this  time,  Rome  responded  to  an  appeal  and  with  a  fleet 
of  two  hundred  ships,  cleared  the  Adriatic  of  these  sea- 
robbers.  Thus  Rome  secured  a  foothold  upon  the  eastern 
coast  of  the  Adriatic  and  engaged  in  friendly  relations  with 
Greece. 

Another  opportunity  for  war  was  afforded  by  the  Gauls 
who  lived  upon  the  banks  of  the  Po.  From  the  Sybilline 
books  it  was  learned  with  apprehension  that  these  barbarians 
would  twice  capture  Rome.  According  to  the  college  of 
pontiffs,  this  prophecy  would  be  fulfilled  without  danger 
to  Rome  if  two  Gauls  were  buried  alive.  This  ceremony 
being  performed,  the  consuls  advanced  with  their  army  to 
meet  the  Gauls,  encamped  near  Cape  Telemon,  not  above 
three  days'  journey  from  Rome.  Though  superior  in  num- 
bers, the  Gauls  were  poorly  equipped,  and  fought  almost 
naked.    Despite  their  fierce  yells  and  appearance,  they  were 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  71 

defeated  with  a  loss  of  40,000,  killed  and  wounded  (225 
B.  C). 

The  Romans  now  crossed  the  Po  for  the  first  time,  and 
seized  Milan,  the  capital  of  the  Insubres  (223  B.  C).  The 
Alphine  Gauls,  called  Gesates,  because  of  their  skill  in 
casting  darts,  came  to  the  aid  of  their  brethren;  but  were 
almost  annihilated  at  Clastidium,  where  Viridomar,  their 
chief,  was  slain  in  combat  by  the  hand  of  the  consul  Mar- 
cellus  (222  B.  C).  This  victory  gave  the  Romans  control 
of  all  northern  Italy. 

Perhaps  the  most  remarkable  contest  in  antiquity  was  the 
second  Punic  War,  waged  partly  because  of  growing  rivalry 
and  desire  for  more  territory,  and  partly  for  revenge.  The 
ambition  of  Carthage  was  for  trade,  and  her  commercial 
opportunities  had  been  greatly  curtailed  as  the  result  of 
her  previous  war  with  Rome.  Owing  to  the  loss  of  her 
island  possessions,  she  was  building  up  an  empire  on  the 
Iberian  peninsula,  where  abounded  many  rich  mines  and 
other  sources  of  wealth.  Begun  under  Hamilcar  Barca, 
her  greatest  citizen  and  soldier,  the  extension  of  her  control 
was  being  continued  to  the  west  and  north  by  his  son-in-law, 
Hasdrubal,  who  founded  New  Carthage  (Cartagena),  on 
the  Mediterranean  coast.  A  treaty  had  been  made  with 
Rome,  providing  respect  for  the  Iberian  city  of  Saguntum 
to  the  north,  and  limiting  the  Punic  conquests  to  the  south 
banks  of  the  Ebro.  Hamilcar  had  four  sons,  who  he  re- 
garded as  lion  whelps  bred  to  fight  Rome;  and  it  is  also 
said  that  the  youngest,  Hannibal,  when  a  boy  of  nine,  had 
taken  an  oath  on  the  altar  of  Baal  to  destroy  that  nation. 
Hasdrubal  died,  Hamilcar  was  killed  in  battle;  and  at  the 
age  of  twenty-six  Hannibal  became  commander  of  the 
army.  He  threatened  to  take  Saguntum,  and  the  Iberians 
sent  to  Rome  for  help.  At  the  head  of  150,000  men,  said 
to  have  been  one-half  Spaniards,  and  the  other  half  Car- 


72  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

thaginians,  he  besieged  Saguntum,  and  after  eight  months, 
captured  and  reduced  it  to  ashes.  The  Romans  sent  an 
army  into  Africa  under  Sempronius,  and  another  into  Spain 
under  P.  Cornelius  Scipio.  Hannibal  decided  that  by  carry- 
ing the  war  into  Roman  territory  he  could  compel  the  with- 
drawal of  both  these  armies.  Accordingly  leaving  his 
brother  Hasdrubal  to  protect  Spain,  he  set  out  on  a  march 
to  Italy  with  fifty  thousand  infantry,  nine  thousand  cavalry, 
and  thirty-seven  elephants.  There  were  no  roads  at  that 
time,  and  though  he  crossed  the  Pyrenees  in  summer,  he 
had  to  overcome  a  hundred  hostile  tribes  on  the  way,  and 
it  was  late  in  autumn  before  he  had  outflanked  the  barbarians 
who  strove  to  oppose  his  passage  at  the  River  Rhone,  crossed 
that  river,  and  found  the  passes  of  the  Little  St.  Bernard 
by  which  he  had  to  force  his  way  through  snow  and  ice  over 
the  Alps.  Men  and  horses  perished  there  in  great  numbers 
and  only  seven  elephants  were  left  when  he  descended  into 
the  plains  of  northern  Italy,  where  he  expected  to  be  rein- 
forced by  the  Cisalpine  Gauls. 

The  Romans  had  learned  of  this  expedition,  and  retaining 
Sempronius  to  defend  Italy,  Scipio  was  sent  by  sea  to  Mar- 
sala to  try  and  stop  Hannibal  at  the  Rhone ;  but  he  was  too 
late,  and  so  returned  to  Italy  in  time  to  obstruct  the  passage 
of  Hannibal  across  the  Ticinus,  but  was  there  defeated  and 
badly  wounded.  Before  Scipio  could  again  rejoin  the  army, 
his  colleague  Sempronius  had  met  with  a  still  worse  defeat 
in  attempting  to  stop  the  march  of  Hannibal  near  the  Trebia. 

The  following  spring  Hannibal,  who  had  now  reached 
the  heart  of  Italy,  was  opposed  by  Flaminius,  quite  as 
brave  but  no  more  prudent  than  Sempronius.  Flaminius 
placed  his  own  army  at  Aretium  in  Etruria  and  his  col- 
league's at  Ariminum  to  guard  the  only  roads  by  which 
Hannibal  could  approach  Rome.  But  the  wily  Carthaginian 
crossed  the  Apennines  and  not  only  got  his  army  between 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  73 

the  Roman  armies  and  their  Capital,  but  so  posted  it  on 
the  heights  north  of  Lake  Trasumenus  as  to  overlook  a 
defile  through  which  the  army  of  Flaminius  had  to  pass  to 
reach  Rome.  Though  the  Romans  fought  with  despera- 
tion on  finding  themselves  thus  ambushed,  the  result  was  a 
rout;  Flaminius  was  slain,  many  of  his  soldiers  were  cap- 
tured, and  a  large  number  perished  by  throwing  themselves 
into  the  lake.  So  furious  was  the  battle  that  an  earthquake 
which  occurred  at  the  time  and  destroyed  several  cities, 
was  unnoticed  by  the  combatants. 

Three  such  bloody  defeats  in  succession  terrified  the 
Romans.  A  more  cautious  type  of  man  was  chosen  as  dic- 
tator, Q.  Fabius  Maximus,  a  member  of  the  Fabian  gens 
which  had  on  previous  occasions  proved  its  devotion  to 
the  country.  Fabius  adopted  the  plan  of  merely  harassing 
the  troops  of  Hannibal  without  coming  to  an  open  conflict, 
a  policy  he  carried  to  such  an  extent  that  it  gave  him  the 
name  of  Fabius  Cunctator,  the  Delayer.  He  did  attempt 
to  decoy  Hannibal's  forces  into  a  narrow  defile  of  the 
mountains  near  Falerium,  but  Punic  was  more  than  a  match 
for  him.  The  Carthaginians  tied  bundles  of  dry  wood  to 
the  horns  of  some  two  thousand  oxen,  and  during  the  night 
set  these  bundles  on  fire  and  drove  the  cattle  toward  the 
heights  occupied  by  Romans.  The  latter  were  terrified  and, 
abandoning  their  posts,  fled,  while  Hannibal  escaped  with  his 
army. 

The  Roman  people  tired  of  Fabius  and  his  procrastinating 
ways,  and  appointed  Paulus  Aemilius  and  Varro  for  their 
consuls,  of  whom  it  was  subsequently  said  that  Paulus  had 
prudence  enough  to  save,  and  Varre  temerity  enough  to 
ruin  the  republic.  Unfortunately  for  Rome,  Varro's  plans 
for  conducting  the  war  prevailed  over  the  advice  of  Paulus. 
Hannibal's  army  was  now  in  Apulia,  near  the  town  of 
Cannae,  on  the  Aufidus  River,  to  which  the  consuls  led  their 


74  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

army,  consisting  of  eighty  thousand  infantry  and  six  thou- 
sand horse — the  largest  Roman  army  ever  collected  up  to 
that  time.  Hannibal  had  forty  thousand  foot  soldiers  and 
ten  thousand  cavalry,  but  according  to  the  report  he  man- 
aged to  shift  his  position  so  that  the  rays  of  a  scorching  sun 
as  well  as  the  dust  of  a  high  wind  struck  the  faces  of  the 
Romans.  Varro  massed  his  infantry  and,  with  small  squad- 
rons of  horse  on  either  wing,  charged  directly  at  the  center 
of  Hannibal's  forces,  which,  being  a  light  line,  as  previously 
instructed,  gave  way  when  Varro's  men  found  themselves 
attacked  on  each  flank  by  heavy  infantry,  while  strong- 
armed  horsemen  had  easily  swept  aside  their  light-armed 
troopers,  and  were  assaulting  them  from  the  rear.  A  dread- 
ful carnage  followed.  Pressed  on  all  sides,  the  Romans 
were  cut  to  pieces.  The  consul  Aemilius  lost  his  life,  as  did 
sixty  senators.  Fifty  thousand  soldiers  were  reported  as 
slain,  and  so  many  of  the  knights  that  three  bushels  of 
gold  rings  were  collected  from  the  field  of  the  dead  and  sent 
to  Carthage.  Varro  escaped  with  only  seventy  horsemen. 
Every  home  in  Rome  was  in  mourning. 

One  of  Hannibal's  generals,  Marharbal,  advised  him  to 
march  straight  upon  the  Capital;  and  had  he  followed  this 
advice,  Carthage  might  have  become  Mistress  of  the  world 
instead  of  the  city  by  the  Tiber.  It  is  further  reported  that 
as  Hannibal  declined  to  move  his  army  on  Rome,  Marharbal 
said :  "You  know  how  to  conquer,  but  not  how  to  use  your 
victory." 

The  influence  of  this  victory  was  such  that  many  tribes, 
like  the  Lucanians,  Samnites,  and  Bruttians,  became  allies 
of  Hannibal,  and  Capua,  next  to  Rome  the  most  important 
city  in  Italy,  opened  her  gates  to  him.  And  here  might 
be  illustrated  a  redeeming  feature  in  the  spirit  of  warfare 
in  distinction  from  the  effects  of  an  indolent  and  aimless 
life  of  ease;  since  here  began  the  downward  turn  in  Hanni- 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  75 

bal's  career.  Hannibal  imprudently  selected  Capua  for  his 
winter  quarters.  His  hardy  warriors  were  demoralized  by 
the  fascinations  of  an  idle  and  sensual  life.  They  were  so 
enervated  by  gluttony  and  debauchery  that  the  fortunes  of 
their  leader  from  that  time  necessarily  declined.  Hannibal 
seems  to  have  remained  at  Capua  with  his  army  not  merely 
for  the  winter,  but  for  several  years ;  and  not  only  neighbor- 
ing tribes  gave  him  their  allegiance,  but  Syracuse  and  other 
Sicilian  cities  did  so  as  well.  Besides,  shortly  after  his  ar- 
rival in  Italy,  he  formed  an  alliance  with  Philip  of  Macedon. 
He  retained  the  purpose  with  which  he  set  out  from 
Spain,  and  possessed  the  ambition  of  Alexander;  he,  too, 
might  have  become  master  of  the  world. 

Capua  was  retaken  by  the  Romans  in  211  B.  C,  in  spite 
of  Hannibal's  opposition,  and  many  of  its  citizens  put  to 
death.  Syracuse  was  also  besieged  and  taken  by  Marcellus, 
Archimedes,  the  greatest  mathematician  of  antiquity,  being 
slain  in  the  conflict.  War  was  also  carried  into  Spain  and. 
though  both  the  elder  Scipios  were  slain,  the  consul  Cornelius 
Scipio,  son  of  Publius,  captured  New  Carthage  and  brought 
over  nearly  all  the  tribes  to  the  Roman  cause.  Hannibal's 
excuse  for  delay  was  that  he  was  awaiting  reinforcements 
he  had  asked  for  from  Carthage.  His  brother  Hasdrubal 
did  succeed  in  evading  Scipio's  army  and  in  leaving  Spain 
with  an  army  to  assist  his  brother  in  208  B.  C,  following 
Hannibal's  path  over  the  Alps  and  entering  the  valley  of  the 
Po,  in  the  spring  of  207  B.  C.  But  he  was  met  at  the  river 
Metaurus  by  Tiberius  Claudius  Nero,  defeated  and  slain. 

Scipio,  having  captured  Gades  on  the  western  coast  of 
Spain,  as  well  as  New  Carthage  on  the  Mediterranean,  be- 
sides gaining  other  important  victories,  returned  to  Rome 
and  was  unanimously  elected  to  the  consulship;  thereupon 
his  plans  for  the  conduct  of  the  war  were  adopted. 

Scipio,  being  convinced  that  the  best  way  to  get  Hannibal 


76  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORLD 

out  of  Italy  was  to  attack  Carthage,  equipped  an  army,  em- 
barked from  Sicily  and  landed  in  Africa.  He  was  joined 
by  the  Numidian  king,  Masinissa,  whom  he  had  previously 
met  in  Spain,  and  whose  title  was  disputed  by  a  rival,  Sy- 
phax,  an  ally  of  Carthage.  The  title  to  the  kingship  of 
Numidia  thus  became  an  issue  in  the  war  with  Carthage. 
Discovering  that  the  tents  of  Syphax's  soldiers  were  com- 
posed of  reeds  and  thatch,  Scipio  ordered  his  lieutenant, 
Laelius,  to  attack  and  set  fire  to  the  camp,  while  Scipio  him- 
self was  to  attack  the  Carthaginians.  Both  movements  were 
successful,  and,  wellnigh  overwhelmed  by  these  disasters,  the 
Carthaginians  immediately  sent  messengers  to  recall  Han- 
nibal, who,  like  a  lion  at  bay,  still  held  his  devoted  army  in 
Bruttium.  Thus,  with  grief  and  indignation,  accusing  gods 
and  men  of  thwarting  him,  and  regretting  that  he  had  not 
attacked  Rome  immediately  after  the  conclusion  of  the  bat- 
tle of  Cannae,  did  Hannibal  leave  Italy.  Landing  on  the 
African  coast,  he  offered  terms  to  Scipio  which  the  latter 
rejected,  and,  though  realizing  the  inferiority  of  his  own 
army,  Hannibal  awaited  battle  on  the  field  of  Zama.  He 
had  but  few  of  his  old  veterans,  the  new  armies  of  Carthage 
could  not  be  depended  upon,  and  Scipio  arranged  his  legions 
so  that  the  African  elephants  passed  between  them  without 
opposition.  The  result  could  only  be  one  way — Hannibal 
was  defeated  and  the  Carthaginian  army  suffered  annihila- 
tion.   Twenty  thousand  were  slain  and  as  many  captured. 

Scipio  Africanus  imposed  the  terms  of  peace :  1.  Car- 
thage surrendered  all  Spain  and  the  islands  between  Africa 
and  Italy ;  2.  Masinissa  was  recognized  as  ruler  of  Numidia 
and  the  ally  of  Rome;  3.  Carthage  promised  to  pay  an  an- 
nual tribute  of  200  talents  ($250,000)  for  fifty  years;  4. 
Carthage  undertook  to  wage  no  war  without  Rome's  consent. 

Exiled  from  Carthage  at  the  demands  of  the  Romans, 


THE    ITALIAN    PENINSULA  77 

Hannibal  still  strove  to  raise  up  enemies  against  them  in 
Spain,  in  the  north  of  Italy,  in  Macedonia  and  Asia  Minor. 
Refused  an  asylum  by  Antiochus  the  Great,  this  Cartha- 
ginian soldier,  perhaps  the  greatest  military  strategist  the 
world  ever  knew,  terminated  his  own  life  by  poison. 

The  Romans,  freed  from  Hannibal,  the  most  dangerous 
enemy  they  ever  encountered,  turned  their  attention  toward 
his  allies — Philip  of  Macedon,  Antiochus  of  Syria,  and  Per- 
seus. Pretending  to  take  the  Greek  cities  of  the  Achaean 
League  and  the  Aetolian  League  under  her  protection  as 
allies,  Philip,  as  we  have  seen,  was  defeated  at  Cynoscepha- 
lae,  198  B.  C,  and  the  independence  of  Greece  at  the  same 
time  destroyed.  Then  Rome  defeated  Antiochus  at  the  bat- 
tle of  Magnetia,  192  B.  C,  and  brought  Syria  under  control, 
and  by  the  decisive  battle  of  Pydna,  168  B.  C,  overthrew 
Perseus,  and  destroyed  the  Macedonian  monarchy. 

Prosperity  seems  to  arouse  the  enmity  of  one's  neighbors, 
and  it  seems  to  have  been  the  inherent  thrift  of  the  Cartha- 
ginian people  which  caused  the  destruction  of  their  city. 
For  although  the  pretext  for  the  war  was  found  in  the  quar- 
rels between  Carthage  and  Numidia,  whose  king,  Masinissa, 
was  an  ally  of  Rome,  the  words  of  Cato — "delenda  est 
Carthago" — constituted  the  standing  policy  of  the  Roman 
Senate.  Notwithstanding  her  appeal  to  Rome  for  the  pro- 
tection of  their  rights  against  Masinissa,  the  Senate  de- 
manded that  as  a  guaranty  to  keep  the  peace,  Carthage  must 
surrender  300  of  her  noblest  youths  as  hostages,  which  was 
done.  Then  the  Senate  urged,  as  they  were  under  the  pro- 
tection of  Rome,  they  must  give  up  all  their  arms  and  muni- 
tions, which  also  was  done.  Then  finally  the  demand  was 
made  that  as  the  city  was  fortified,  it,  too,  must  be  given  up 
and  the  inhabitants  remove  to  a  point  ten  miles  from  the 
coast,  or  in  other  words,  that  "Carthage  must  be  destroyed." 


5T 

& 


78  WAR  OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

This  was  more  than  human  nature  could  bear.  Though 
without  arms,  ships  or  allies,  a  defense  was  resolved  upon. 
The  temples  were  turned  into  workshops  for  manufactur- 
ing weapons,  and  the  women  cut  off  their  hair  to  make  bow- 
strings. For  three  years  they  successfully  resisted  the  Ro- 
man attack,  when  at  last,  Scipio  Aemilianus  forced  a  way 
through  the  wall  and  the  city  was  taken  street  by  street  and 
house  by  house.  Its  temples  were  plundered  and  its  people 
carried  away  as  captives,  and  the  city  destroyed  by  fire,  in 
the  same  year  (146  B.  C.)  in  which  Corinth  was  destroyed — 
stern  evidences  of  Rome's  grim  policy  of  dominion. 

Africa  became  now  a  Roman  province  and  Utica  the  new 
capital,  where  the  Roman  governor  resided.  The  cities, 
which  had  been  allied  with  Carthage,  lost  their  lands  and 
were  compelled  to  pay  tribute,  and  the  whole  country  was 
Romanized  as  to  language,  manners  and  customs,  the  wel- 
fare of  the  people  made  to  depend  upon  their  loyalty  to 
Rome. 

The  slave  system  was  one  of  the  worst  results  of  Roman 
conquest.  The  thousands  of  captives  taken  in  war  from  year 
to  year  were  sold  in  the  open  market.  Fifty  thousand  Cartha- 
genians  had  been  sent  to  Rome  after  the  destruction  of  their 
city,  and  it  is  estimated  that  Paulus  Aemilius  alone,  father 
of  Scipio  Aemilianus,  sold  into  slavery  one  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  persons.  The  estates  in  Sicily  swarmed  with 
a  servile  population,  and,  smarting  under  ill-treatment,  they 
formed  a  conspiracy  under  a  leader  named  Eunus,  and 
fought  the  power  of  Rome  for  three  years  (132-129  B.  C). 
Some  two  hundred  thousand  insurgents  enrolled  under  the 
banner  of  Eunus,  and  not  till  four  armies  were  defeated  and 
Rome  thrown  into  consternation  was  the  rebellion  finally 
crushed  and  Sicily  pacified.  It  may  be  noted  as  an  anomaly 
that  Rome  acquired  one  piece  of  territory  without  war.    In 


THE    ITALIAN    PENINSULA  79 

the  year  prior  to  the  insurrection  in  Sicily,  at  the  death  of  At- 
talus  III,  King  of  Pergamum,  in  Asia  Minor,  "after  killing 
all  his  heirs,  ended  a  life  of  folly  by  bequeathing  his  kingdom 
to  the  Roman  people."  The  kingdom  was  organized  as  a 
province  under  the  name  of  "Asia." 

While  Numantia  was  being  reduced  and  the  rebellion 
quelled  in  Sicily  dissensions  were  arising  in  Rome,  leading 
to  bloody  contests  and  the  destruction  of  the  republic.  These 
conflicts  grew  largely  out  of  the  efforts  of  two  brothers — 
Tiberius  and  Caius  Gracci,  grandsons,  by  their  mother  Cor- 
nelia, of  the  first  Scipio  Africanus — to  correct  some  of  the 
evils  resulting  from  the  holding  of  large  estates  and  the  em- 
ployment of  slave  labor.  It  was  said  of  Tiberius  Gracchus, 
the  elder  brother,  that  when  passing  through  the  province  of 
Etruria  he  was  greatly  shocked  to  observe  the  fields  being 
tilled  by  groups  of  slaves,  with  thousands  of  free  citizens 
standing  in  idleness,  and  accordingly,  when  elected  tribune, 
133  B.  C.,  he  immediately  attempted  to  remedy  this  evil.  He 
endeavored  to  revive  the  Licinian  laws,  to  limit  the  holdings 
of  public  lands  to  three  hundred  acres  for  each  person,  to  pay 
previous  holders  for  improvements,  and  to  rent  the  land 
taken  up  to  poorer  classes  of  citizens.  If  passed,  this  law 
would  have  deprived  the  wealthy  of  lands  long  possessed,  and 
the  senate  opposed  it ;  one  of  the  tribunes,  M.  Octavius,  put- 
ting his  "veto"  upon  its  passage. 

Tiberius  determined  to  enact  the  law  in  spite  of  the  senate, 
and  instead  of  waiting  for  a  new  election  he  called  upon  the 
people  to  deprive  Octavius  of  his  office.  This  was  promptly 
done,  and  the  law  passed.  The  senators  now  determined  to 
prosecute  Tiberius  when  his  term  of  office  should  expire. 
But  Tiberius  announced  himself  as  a  candidate  for  re-elec- 
tion, in  which,  though  contrary  to  existing  law,  he  was  sup- 
ported by  the  popular  party.     On  election  day,  two  tribes 


80  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

having  already  voted  in  his  favor,  a  band  of  senators,  headed 
by  Scipio  Nasica,  appeared  in  the  Forum,  armed  with  sticks 
and  clubs,  and  in  the  ensuing  riot  Tiberius  and  three  hun- 
dred of  his  followers  were  slain. 

For  a  time  following  his  death  the  agrarian  law  which 
had  been  passed  was  carried  into  effect,  but  the  people  lacked 
leadership  and  Caius  Gracchus,  nine  years  younger  than  his 
brother,  was  selected  as  a  suitable  person  to  champion  their 
cause.  He  was  elected  tribune  (123  B.  C),  and  succeeded 
in  securing  the  passage  of  a  law  by  which  any  Roman  citizen 
could  obtain  grain  from  the  public  storehouse  for  a  price 
something  less  than  its  cost.  This  was  intended  to  reduce 
the  number  of  paupers,  but  seems  to  have  had  the  reverse 
effect.  The  poor  now  flocked  to  Rome  from  the  remotest 
parts  to  be  fed  from  the  public  crib;  so  that  in  a  few  years 
there  were  three  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  citizens  de- 
pendent upon  the  state  for  their  sustenance.  Caius  became 
very  popular  with  this  class ;  nevertheless,  personal  ambition 
and  thrift  were  weakened  among  the  people  by  the  passage 
of  the  law.  The  agrarian  laws  initiated  by  Tiberius  were 
also  renewed,  and  Caius  provided  for  sending  colonies  of 
poor  citizens  into  the  provinces.  He  also  championed  and 
passed  a  law  taking  away  from  the  senate  the  right  to  fur- 
nish jurors  in  criminal  cases,  giving  the  same  right  to  the 
wealthy  class,  or  equites ;  and,  on  his  re-election,  succeeded  in 
passing  a  measure  for  extending  the  franchise  to  all  the 
people  of  Italy.  This,  his  wisest  measure,  destroyed  his 
popularity,  as  even  the  poorer  classes  of  Romans  did  not 
desire  to  share  their  rights  with  foreigners.  So  strenuous 
were  the  few  followers  of  Caius  in  his  behalf,  however,  that 
the  consul  Opimius,  with  a  body  of  armed  men,  marched 
against  him  and  routed  his  attendants.  Three  thousand 
citizens  were  slain  in  the  tumult  (121  B.  C).     Abandoned 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  81 

by  the  multitude,  for  whom  he  had  sacrificed  himself,  Caius 
ordered  a  slave  to  kill  him.  Opimius  had  offered,  it  is  said, 
to  pay  its  weight  in  gold  for  the  head  of  Caius,  but  the  slave 
obeyed  his  master  and  then  slew  himself.  Thus  perished  the 
Gracci,  who  had  attempted  to  relieve  the  Roman  people  from 
the  ills  of  a  corrupt  government. 

About  the  time  Caius  Gracchus  was  being  proscribed  and 
slain  a  variety  of  conflicts  was  occurring  in  Italy  and  in  the 
provinces.  The  small  land  areas  created  by  Tiberius  Grac- 
chus had  been  swallowed  up  in  large  estates;  heavy  taxes 
prevailed;  the  slaves  were  threatening  rebellion;  the  seas 
swarmed  with  pirates,  and  the  barbarians  were  threatening 
to  invade  the  frontiers. 

While  these  dangers  threatened,  the  attention  of  the  sen- 
ate was  directed  to  a  conflict  in  Africa,  the  chief  interest  in 
which  to-day  is  that  it  illustrates  something  of  the  extent  of 
Roman  corruption  which  then  prevailed.  Jugurtha,  the 
nephew  of  Masinissa,  on  the  latter's  death,  had  murdered 
his  two  sons  and  made  himself  sole  king  of  Numidia,  a 
country  which  was  an  ally  of  Rome.  A  protest  being  made, 
commissioners  were  sent  to  settle  the  matter,  who,  however, 
sold  themselves  to  Jugurtha  as  soon  as  they  landed  in  Africa. 
The  Roman  people  were  incensed,  and  a  war  against  the 
Numidian  king  declared.  L.  Calpernius  Bestia,  the  consul 
in  whose  hands  the  conduct  of  the  war  was  placed,  on  ar- 
riving in  Africa  also  accepted  Jugurtha's  gold  and  made 
peace.  Because  of  renewed  indignation  Jugurtha  was  sum- 
moned to  Rome,  and  immediately  came.  When  he  appeared 
to  make  his  statement  a  tribune  who  had  also  been  bribed 
ordered  him  to  desist.  Meanwhile  this  Numidian  having  the 
audacity  to  cause  the  murder  of  another  rival,  grandson  of 
Masinissa,  then  in  Rome,  was  expelled  and,  returning  to 
Africa,  took  command  of  his  own  army  against  the  Romans. 


82  WAR  OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

The  new  consul,  Q.  Caecilius  Metullus,  having  chief  com- 
mand, employed  as  his  lieutenant  Caius  Marius,  a  soldier 
who  had  risen  from  the  ranks,  but  whose  success  was  so 
great  that  he  was  elected  consul  and  superseded  Metullus  in 
the  supreme  command.  His  defeat  of  Jugurtha  smacks  of 
the  latter's  own  methods.  Marius  sent  Sulla,  his  quaestor, 
to  Bocchus,  King  of  Mauritania,  and  an  ally  of  Jugurtha, 
to  intimate  that  he  might  purchase  the  friendship  of  the  Ro- 
mans by  delivering  Jugurtha  to  them.  Despite  the  offer  of 
a  large  sum  by  Jugurtha  if  he  would  deliver  over  Sulla  to 
him,  the  advantages  of  a  Roman  alliance  seemed  so  great 
that  having  invited  the  Numidian  to  an  interview,  he  seized 
the  latter,  loaded  him  with  chains  and  gave  him  up  to  Sulla. 
The  name  and  wars  of  Jugurtha  have  been  immortalized  by 
Sallust.  Jugurtha  was  exposed  in  Rome  to  the  view  of  the 
people  and  dragged  in  chains  to  adorn  the  triumph  of  Ma- 
rius. He  was  afterwards  placed  in  prison,  where  he  died  at 
the  end  of  six  days  from  hunger  (106  B.  C). 

While  Marius  was  settling  affairs  in  Africa  the  Teutons 
and  Cimbri,  among  the  fiercest  of  northern  tribes,  had 
pushed  down  from  the  southern  part  of  Gaul  and  overrun 
the  new  province  of  Narbonensis,  established  the  year  fol- 
lowing the  death  of  Caius  Gracchus.  It  had  been  found  very 
difficult  to  stay  the  course  of  these  savages.  In  a  battle 
fought  at  Arausia,  near  the  Rhone,  in  107  B.  C.,  an  army  of 
eighty  thousand  Roman  soldiers  was  destroyed ;  and  had  the 
victors  not  stopped  to  ravage  the  country  of  southern  Gaul, 
Rome  itself  might  have  been  taken. 

Marius  reached  the  banks  of  the  Rhone  with  his  army. 
The  Cimbri  had  turned  aside  to  plunder  in  Spain,  but  they 
soon  returned  and  prepared  to  cross  the  Alps  into  the  north- 
west of  Italy,  while  the  Teutons  were  moving  to  the  same 
goal  directly  from  the  west.    Against  the  latter  Marius  pro- 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  83 

jected  his  own  army  and  sent  his  colleague,  Q.  Lutantius 
Catulus,  to  meet  the  Cimbri.  In  the  battle  of  Aquae  Sex- 
tiae,  near  Aix,  he  formed  an  ambuscade  and  annihilated  the 
Teutonic  hosts.  The  next  day  he  received  the  news  of  his 
election  for  the  fifth  time  to  the  consulship.  Though  it  was 
contrary  to  law  to  re-elect  a  consul  immediately  after  a  term 
of  service,  the  Romans  seem  to  have  believed  that  "in  the 
midst  of  arms  the  laws  are  silent"  (102  B.  C). 

Meanwhile  the  Cimbri  had  crossed  the  Alps  and  driven 
Catulus  across  the  Po.  Marius  hastened  at  the  head  of  his 
victorious  troops  to  join  him  and  meet  the  invaders.  The 
Cimbri,  not  knowing  of  the  fate  of  the  Teutons,  sent  depu- 
ties to  the  consul  demanding  lands  and  cities  sufficient  for 
themselves  and  brethren. 

Three  days  later  a  fierce  battle  occurred  in  what  is  now 
known  as  the  Raudine  Fields,  to  the  south  of  Vercelli,  where 
the  Cimbri  were  nearly  exterminated  (101  B.  C). 

Marius,  given  a  magnificent  triumph  and  hailed  as  a  second 
Camillus  and  a  third  Romulus,  was  now  at  the  height  of 
popularity.  None  had  ever  surpassed  him  in  this  respect  in 
Rome.  The  two  principal  aspirants  for  popular  leadership 
were  Saturninus  and  Glaucia,  and  with  these  Marius  allied 
himself  and  was  elected  consul  for  the  sixth  time.  Oppo- 
sition, urged  on  by  certain  senators,  developed,  however,  and 
resulted  in  bloody  tumults.  The  senate  demanded  that 
Marius  as  consul  should  put  down  the  revolt.  Loath  to  make 
war  upon  the  people,  his  former  friends,  he  reluctantly  com- 
plied, and  both  his  colleagues,  Saturninus  and  Glaucia,  were 
killed  in  the  conflict.  This  threw  him  into  disrepute  and  the 
senate  took  the  reins  of  government.  The  Roman  allies, 
though  having  furnished  soldiers  for  the  armies,  had  not  re- 
ceived their  rights  as  citizens  and  demanded  that  all  Italians 
should  have  equal  political  rights. 


84  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

A  tribune,  M.  Livius  Drusus,  in  order  to  please  the  people, 
proposed  an  increase  in  the  largesses  of  grain,  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  cheap  copper  coin  to  possess  the  same  value  as  the 
previous  silver  one,  that  jurors  should  be  selected  from  both 
the  senatorial  and  equites  classes,  and  finally,  that  all  Italians 
should  be  granted  the  Roman  franchise. 

Attempting  to  begin  by  uniting  equites  and  people  to  pass 
the  first  two  of  these  laws,  he  found  the  senate  violently  op- 
posed and  much  violence  ensued.  Although  the  laws  were 
passed,  the  senate  declared  them  null  and  void.  Ignoring 
this  act  of  the  senate,  Drusus  proposed  that  the  assembly 
should  grant  the  franchise  to  the  Italians,  but  found  himself 
opposed,  and  was  later  murdered  by  an  unknown  assassin. 
His  death  led  the  Italians  to  organize  a  separate  republic, 
with  the  government  at  Corfinium,  in  the  Apennines.  It 
was  modeled  after  that  of  Rome,  with  five  hundred  members 
in  the  senate,  with  two  consuls  and  other  officers,  and  in- 
cluded as  its  subjects  nearly  all  the  people  of  central  and 
southern  Italy. 

Rome  was  now  thoroughly  aroused.  A  hundred  thousand 
men  took  the  field  against  as  many  armed  for  rebellion.  Ma- 
rius,  made  commander  the  first  year,  was,  on  account  of  his 
age,  superseded  the  second  year  by  L.  Cornelius  Sulla.  An 
army  under  Pompeius  Strabo  captured  Corfinium,  the  first 
capital ;  and  the  second  capital,  Bovianum,  was  captured  by 
Sulla.  Three  hundred  thousand  men  lost  their  lives  in  the 
war,  but  Italy  was  permanently  incorporated  with  Rome,  and 
the  following  year  (89  B.  C.)  practically  all  the  inhabitants 
of  the  peninsula  became  citizens  alike. 

And  now  is  well  illustrated  the  oft-time  petty  character  of 
the  human  disposition  when  inflated  with  the  possession  of 
power.  Marius  was  mortified  that  he  should  thus  be  super- 
seded by  Sulla,  and  to  regain  his  status  with  the  people 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  85 

joined  fortunes  with  the  tribune  P.  Sulpicius  Rufus,  the 
most  popular  leader.  By  the  aid  of  an  armed  force  the  "Sul- 
pician  laws"  were  passed,  displacing  Sulla  and  turning  the 
army  over  to  Marius.  At  this  unheard  of  procedure,  Sulla 
appealed  to  his  army,  then  in  Campania,  which  responded 
favorably,  and  he  marched  upon  Rome,  settling  the  question 
in  the  streets  of  the  capital.  Marius  and  Sulpicius  were  ex- 
pelled, the  laws  passed  by  the  latter  annulled,  and  the  senate 
clothed  with  power  to  approve  or  reject  any  law  before  sub- 
mitting it  to  the  people. 

How  Marius,  as  a  wandering  exile,  was  captured  and  con- 
demned to  death  at  Minturia,  how  he  over-awed  the  execu- 
tioner by  asking  if  he  dared  "to  kill  Caius  Marius,"  was  or- 
dered away  from  the  ruins  of  Carthage,  where  he  had  taken 
refuge,  and  then  came  back  and  took  command  of  an  army 
raised  by  his  friend,  the  consul  L.  Cornelius  Cinna,  will  be 
recalled  as  among  the  events  which  followed. 

Sulla  had  with  his  army  gone  to  the  East,  so  Marius  and 
Cinna  had  little  difficulty  in  capturing  Rome.  The  gates 
were  closed,  and  the  ghastly  head  of  the  other  consul,  C. 
Octavius,  friend  of  Sulla,  was  the  first  to  be  suspended  in  the 
Forum.  Then  the  heads  of  the  chief  senators  were  hung  up. 
Marius  seems  to  have  become  a  veritable  madman  reveling 
in  slaughter.  The  city  afforded  a  continuous  performance  of 
murder,  plunder  and  outrage.  No  one  was  safe  if  friendly 
to  Sulla;  his  supporters  were  slain  on  sight.  Marius  and 
Cinna  declared  themselves  consuls.  Fortunately,  perhaps, 
Marius  died  shortly  after  entering  upon  this,  his  seventh 
consulship.  Cinna  continued  to  rule  with  despotic  power. 
He  renamed  himself  consul  each  year  and  selected  his  own 
colleague.  Hearing  of  the  approach  of  Sulla  he  determined 
to  prevent  his  landing,  but  was  killed  by  one  of  his  own  men 
(83  B.C.). 


86  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORLD 

Sulla  had  gone  to  the  East  to  save  that  part  of  the  Roman 
domain  from  complete  conquest.  Mithridates  the  Sixth,  or 
the  Great,  king  of  Pontus,  taking  advantage  of  the  social  war 
in  Rome,  and  having  caused  a  hundred  thousand  Italian  resi- 
dents of  Asia  Minor  to  be  massacred  in  a  single  day,  sent  his 
armies  into  Greece,  and  many  of  the  cities  there,  including 
Athens,  had  declared  in  his  favor.  Sulla  displayed  here,  per- 
haps, his  greatest  ability  as  a  soldier.  He  repelled  the  army 
of  Mithridates  and  laid  siege  to  Athens,  which  surrendered 
after  a  long  and  valiant  resistance  (87  B.  C).  Then  he 
marched  against  the  army  of  Archelaus,  the  most  skillful 
general  of  Mithridates,  encountering  him  at  Chaeronea  (86 
B.  C. ) ,  and  cut  his  army  to  pieces. 

Archelaus  himself  escaped  and,  reinforced  with  a  still 
larger  army,  fortified  himself  at  Orchomenus,  where  Sulla 
attacked  him  the  following  year.  At  the  outset  the  engage- 
ment was  unfavorable  to  the  Romans.  The  vast  number  of 
the  enemy  threw  them  into  consternation  and  they  took  to 
flight.  Sulla,  at  the  sight,  dismounted  and,  seizing  a  stand- 
ard, advanced  alone  toward  the  foe,  crying  out :  "When  you 
Romans  are  asked  where  you  abandoned  your  general,  say 
at  Orchomenus !" 

At  this,  his  soldiers  returned  to  the  charge  and  put  the 
barbarians  to  flight.  Nearly  the  entire  force  of  Archelaus 
was  buried  in  the  neighboring  marshes,  where  they  fled  for 
refuge,  and  it  was  two  days  before  Archelaus  himself  con- 
trived to  escape. 

Mithridates  now  authorized  Archelaus  to  make  peace,  and 
the  latter  being  aware  of  the  necessity  which  urged  Sulla  to 
return  to  Italy,  where  his  party  was  being  oppressed  by  that 
of  Marius,  offered  him  a  large  sum,  sufficient  to  pay  his  ex- 
penses in  Italy,  if  he  would  abandon  the  East  to  Mithridates. 

Sulla,  on  the  contrary,  urged  Archelaus  to  make  war  on 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  87 

Mithridates,  promising  him  his  own  assistance.  Archelaus 
declared  his  detestation  of  such  treachery.  "What,"  ex- 
claimed Sulla,  "do  you,  the  minion  of  a  barbarian  king,  re- 
gard it  base  to  betray  your  master,  yet  dare  to  propose  like 
treason  to  Sulla,  a  Roman  general,  as  if  you  were  not  that 
Archelaus  who  concealed  himself  with  the  remnants  of  his 
army  in  the  plains  of  Orchomenus  ?" 

Abashed  at  this  answer,  Archelaus  accepted  the  terms  of- 
fered. Mithridates  hesitated  in  signing  the  treaty,  as  it  re- 
quired him  to  surrender  his  fleet.  This  irritated  Sulla. 
"Why  should  your  master  cavil,"  he  said  to  the  deputies, 
"about  the  delivery  of  his  ships,  when  he  should  have  en- 
treated me  on  his  knees  to  spare  the  hand  which  had  signed 
the  order  for  the  death  of  so  many  Romans?"  Mithridates 
yielded  his  conquests,  his  fleet  consisting  of  eighty  war  ves- 
sels, and  paid  3,000  talents  ($3,750,000)  indemnity  (85 
B.  C). 

Sulla's  landing  in  Italy  with  a  victorious  army  of  forty 
thousand  men,  was  the  signal  for  civil  war.  The  leaders  of 
the  party  in  power  since  the  death  of  Cinna,  where  Gaius 
Papirius,  Q.  Sertorius,  and  the  younger  Marius.  Altogether 
he  found  fifteen  generals  and  more  than  two  hundred  thou- 
sand men  armed  against  him.  But  Sulla's  reputation  and  the 
hatred  entertained  by  many  for  the  Marian  faction,  drew  a 
crowd  of  soldiers  to  his  standard.  Among  these  were  Pom- 
peius  Strabo  and  Crassus.  Sulla  marched  to  Campania  and 
defeated  one  consul,  while  the  other  consul's  troops  deserted 
to  him  in  a  body.  Then  he  attacked  young  Marius  in  Lat- 
ium,  routed  his  army  and  shut  him  up  in  the  town  of  Prae- 
neste.  Meanwhile  northern  Italy  was  held  in  check  by  Pom- 
pey,  and  a  desperate  battle  was  fought  at  Clusium  in  Etruria, 
where  the  forces  of  Sulla  and  Pompey  defeated  those  of 
Garbo.     The   Samnite  general,   Telesinus,   having  evaded 


88  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

Sulla  and  Pompey  by  a  skillful  march,  formed  the  design  of 
capturing  Rome,  which  he  knew  to  be  defenseless.  Without 
giving  his  own  troops  any  rest  Sulla  followed  and  made  an 
immediate  attack  upon  the  Samnites  under  the  walls  of 
Rome.  The  latter  were  defeated  and  six  thousand  prisoners 
were  put  to  death. 

Sulla  was  now  supreme  ruler,  and  he  seemed  to  emulate 
the  disposition  of  Marius  in  the  character  of  vindictive  meas- 
ures. First  he  outlawed  all  the  civic  and  military  officers 
who  had  taken  any  part  against  him,  offering  a  reward  of 
two  talents  ($2,500)  for  the  murder  of  each  and  every 
one.  Accompanying  this  was  a  list  of  those  he  desired  to 
have  killed.  There  were  eighty  names  on  the  first  list,  two 
hundred  and  twenty  on  the  second,  and  these  lists  continued 
to  be  issued  till  nearly  five  thousand  Roman  citizens  had 
been  slain  as  the  result  of  this  proscription.  Nor  was  this 
all.  Similar  lists  were  sent  to  every  city  in  Italy.  The  his- 
torian Plutarch  says:  "Neither  temple  nor  hospitable 
hearth,  nor  father's  house,  was  free  from  murder."  For 
many  months  the  executions  continued,  and  among  the  slain 
were  ninety  senators  and  more  than  two  thousand  knights. 
At  Praeneste,  Sulla  having  no  time  to  examine  each  in- 
dividual, ordered  all  the  people  to  be  collected  to  the  number 
of  twelve  thousand,  and  then  slaughtered  on  the  spot.  The 
heads  of  many  victims  on  Sulla's  order  were  piled  in  the 
streets  of  Rome  for  execration,  and  the  tomb  of  Marius  was 
broken  open  and  his  ashes  scattered. 

Besides  these  wholesale  murders  of  his  own  fellow-citi- 
zens, Sulla  .confiscated  the  lands  of  Italy,  destroyed  cities, 
and  laid  whole  districts  waste. 

Sulla  now  made  himself  dictator,  a  device  for  the  absolute 
power  he  coveted.     All  his  previous  acts  were  then  con- 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  89 

firmed,  and  his  twenty-three  legions  of  soldiers  were  dis- 
banded and  scattered  through  Italy,  as  citizens,  yet  subject 
to  his  commands.  Thus  Sulla  fixed  his  power  upon  a  mili- 
tary basis. 

The  senate  was  restored  to  its  position  as  a  ruling  body, 
its  three  hundred  members  to  be  elected  from  among  the 
patricians.  Jurors  in  criminal  trials  thereafter  were  to  be 
taken  from  the  senate,  and  no  laws  were  to  be  passed  by  the 
assembly  of  the  tribes  until  first  approved  by  the  senate.  To 
keep  control  of  the  elections,  Sulla  enfranchised  ten  thou- 
sand slaves  ("cornelii"),  giving  them  the  right  to  vote.  Tri- 
bunes were  allowed  to  "intercede"  but  not  to  vote.  He  also 
reformed  the  criminal  courts. 

Sulla  has  been  characterized  as  "a  man  of  blood  and  iron." 
Resigning  his  dictatorship,  after  giving  the  government,  as 
he  supposed,  safely  into  the  hands  of  the  senate,  he  retired 
to  his  villa  at  Pulioli,  on  the  Bay  of  Naples,  where  he  died  the 
following  year  (78  B.  C),  as  the  result,  it  is  said,  of  de- 
bauchery and  licentiousness. 

Scarcely  was  the  death  of  Sulla  announced  before  one  of 
the  consuls,  M.  Aemilius  Lepidus,  aspiring  to  become  leader 
of  the  popular  party,  proposed  to  restore  the  tribunes  to  their 
former  prerogatives  and  rescind  the  Sullan  constitution. 
With  this  plan,  his  colleague,  Q.  Lutatius  Catulus,  had  no 
sympathy  and  raised  strong  opposition  against  it.  The  sen- 
ate, foreseeing  serious  difficulty,  bound  the  two  consuls  un- 
der oath  not  to  resort  to  arms,  but  Lepidus,  despite  his  oath 
to  the  contrary,  raised  an  army  and  marched  upon  Rome. 
Catulus,  with  the  aid  of  Cneius  Pompey,  soon  defeated  him, 
however,  a  circumstance  which  brought  the  name  of  Pom- 
pey into  considerable  prominence  (77  B.  C.)« 

Q.  Sertorius,  a  supporter  of  Marius,  had  escaped  to  Spain 
during  the  Sullan  proscription.    He  was  a  man  characterized 


90  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORU> 

as  of  noble  character,  prudent,  generous  and  brave,  as  well  as 
able  in  war.  Many  of  the  proscribed  had  taken  refuge  in 
Spain,  and  the  native  tribes  were  growing  restless  under  the 
tyranny  of  Roman  governors.  Sertorius  formed  the  plan  of 
setting  up  an  independent  republic  and  delivering  Spain 
from  the  power  of  Rome.  This  plan  was  agreed  upon,  and, 
seconded  by  the  Lusitanians,  he  created  a  senate  of  three 
hundred  members,  organized  the  cities  after  the  Italian 
model,  and  founded  schools  for  instruction  in  the  arts  and 
one  at  Osca  for  classical  culture.  It  was  rumored  among 
the  Lusitanians  that  he  was  one  favored  by  heaven  and  had 
received  from  Diana  a  white  hind  which  told  him  the  secrets 
of  the  future. 

Q.  Caecilius  Metellus  Pius,  being  despatched  against  him 
with  a  large  army,  was  promptly  defeated,  and  then  the 
young  pro-consul  Pompey  was  treated  in  the  same  manner, 
and  might  have  lost  his  entire  army  had  not  Metellus  come  to 
his  assistance.  The  story  was  circulated  that  Sertorius  in  a 
fit  of  wrath  had  caused  the  boys  in  his  school  at  Osca  to  be 
put  to  death,  and  not  long  afterwards  he  was,  in  fact,  mur- 
dered by  one  of  his  lieutenants,  Perpenna.  According  to  one 
account  the  Roman  generals  had  put  a  price  upon  his  head 
and  he  was  assassinated  at  a  feast  (73  B.  C). 

The  Romans  seem  to  have  delighted  in  the  display  of 
bloody  contests,  and  training  schools  existed  in  different 
parts  of  Italy  for  preparing  gladiators  for  mortal  combats  in 
the  arena.  At  Capua,  in  one  of  these  prison  schools,  a  brave 
Thracian  named  Spartacus,  endowed  with  immense  strength, 
incited  his  comrades  to  revolt.  Rather  than  be  "butchered  to 
make  a  Roman  holiday,"  "let  us  fight,"  he  said,  "against  our 


oppressors 


Seventy  of  them  escaped  and  made  the  crater  of  Vesuvius, 
which  was  then  a  dry  bed,  a  stronghold.     This  body  grew 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  91 

into  an  aggregation  of  one  hundred  thousand  men,  and,  hav- 
ing equipped  themseves  with  plundered  arms,  they  seem  to 
have  placed  all  Italy  at  their  mercy.  They  defeated  four 
Roman  armies  in  succession,  but  were  finally  routed  by  M. 
Crassus.  Cneius  Pompey  meeting  a  remnant  of  five  thou- 
sand of  them  on  the  banks  of  Silanus  that  were  endeavoring 
to  escape  into  Gaul,  secured  the  honor  of  putting  an  end  to 
the  servile  war.  In  this  last  combat  the  valiant  Spartacus 
was  slain. 

Owing  largely  to  the  decline  of  the  Roman  navy,  the  sea 
had  become  infested  with  pirates  which  preyed  upon  the 
cities  of  the  Mediterranean  coast,  held  up  and  plundered 
ships  and  had  become  a  menace  and  terror  to  the  nations. 
Their  rendezvous  extended  from  the  island  of  Crete  along 
the  coast  of  Cilicia,  and  they  cut  off  the  supplies  of  grain  to 
such  an  extent  that  Italy  was  threatened  with  a  famine.  In 
this  emergency  an  extraordinary  law  was  passed  giving  Pom- 
pey supreme  control  of  the  sea  and  its  coasts  for  fifty  miles 
inland  for  three  years.  He  was  also  granted  five  hundred 
ships  and  as  many  men  as  he  might  desire.  In  fact  this  lex 
Cabinia  gave  him  unlimited  command  of  the  nation's  treas- 
ury and  resources.  But,  as  it  proved,  public  confidence  in  him 
was  not  misplaced.  As  Cicero  subsequently  said :  "Pompey 
had  made  his  preparations  for  war  at  the  end  of  the  winter, 
began  it  in  early  spring  and  finished  it  in  mid-summer."  He 
captured  three  thousand  vessels,  and  slew  ten  thousand  of 
the  enemy  in  the  operation,  besides  taking  twenty  thousand 
prisoners,  thus  clearing  the  Mediterranean  of  this  pest. 

While  Rome  was  battling  with  Spartacus  at  home  and  Ser- 
torius  in  Spain,  Mithridates  had  taken  advantage  of  the  situ- 
ation to  attack  the  Roman  provinces  of  Asia  Minor.  He  laid 
siege  to  Cyzicus,  an  important  town  on  the  Propontis,  when 
L.  Lucinius  Lucullus,  having  been  despatched  with  an  army 


92  WAR  OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

from  Rome,  compelled  him  to  abandon  his  enterprise.  He 
destroyed  the  army  of  Mithridates  at  the  passage  of  the 
Granicus,  where  Alexander  had  defeated  the  Persian  armies 
two  hundred  and  sixty  years  previously. 

Lucullus,  it  appears,  had  but  fifteen  thousand  men,  but  he 
boldly  entered  Armenia  and  ordered  his  army  to  advance. 
The  Armenians  were  astonished  at  the  onslaught  of  the  Ro- 
mans, and  their  flight  resulted  in  a  slaughter.  According  to 
the  reports,  while  the  Romans  lost  but  five  killed  and  one 
wounded,  the  Armenians  lost  fifty  thousand  men,  with  the 
loss  of  the  neighboring  countries,  and  the  capture  of  Tigra- 
nocerta,  with  all  the  royal  treasures. 

Made  wiser  by  his  defeat,  Tigranes,  King  of  Armenia, 
turned  over  his  command  to  Mithridates,  who  adopted  the 
policy  of  harassing  the  Romans  and  cutting  off  their  supplies. 
But  Lucullus,  discovering  that  Tigranes  had  deposited  his 
chief  treasures  in  Artaxata,  marched  against  that  city,  thus 
causing  the  two  kings  to  defend  it.  At  the  first  onset  the 
enemy  fled,  and  this  defeat  resulted  in  the  conquest  of  all  of 
Armenia,  68  B.  C.  Lucullus  being  recalled  to  Rome,  how- 
ever, the  kings  of  Armenia  and  Pontus  soon  drove  the  in- 
experienced Roman  leaders,  with  their  small  armies,  out  of 
the  country. 

Rome  becoming  uneasy  at  the  successes  of  this  eastern 
king,  a  law  was  passed  (lex  Manilia,  B.  C.  6Q)  recalling 
Lucullus  and  giving  Pompey  supreme  control  over  all  the 
Roman  territory  in  the  East.  Thus  authorized,  Pompey. 
whose  ambitions  had  been  aroused  by  his  previous  successes, 
eagerly  undertook  the  new  enterprise.  In  one  short  cam- 
paign he  almost  annihilated  the  forces  of  the  unfortunate 
monarch,  who  was  abandoned  by  all  his  friends.  His  son- 
in-law,  King  Tigranes,  not  only  refused  his  assistance,  but 
even  set  a  price  upon  his  head.    Mithridates  had  resolved  to 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  93 

emulate  Hannibal  by  carrying  the  war  into  Italy,  but  his 
soldiers  revolted  and  refused  to  follow  him.  As  if  to  settle 
the  matter,  they  proclaimed  his  son,  Pharnaces,  king,  who,  it 
is  said,  was  eager  to  deprive  his  father  of  both  crown  and 
life.  In  fact,  Mithridates  became  at  last  the  victim  of 
parricide. 

Meanwhile  Pompey  invaded  Syria  and  took  possession  of 
that  kingdom.  He  next  entered  Judea,  captured  Jerusalem 
and  took  possession  of  Phoenicia,  and  reduced  to  Roman 
provinces  all  the  countries  beyond  the  Euphrates.  He  made 
peace  with  Pharnaces  and  Tigranes,  and  the  latter  became 
tributaries  to  the  Roman  republic  (63  B.  C). 

Sergius  Cataline,  a  former  partisan  of  Sulla's,  and  once 
praetor,  had  twice  been  defeated  for  the  consulship.  Smart- 
ing under  these  slights  and  ruined  in  fortune,  he  conceived 
the  horrible  design  of  murdering  the  senators,  firing  the  city 
of  Rome,  seizing  the  wealth  which  might  be  secured  from  the 
city's  treasury  and  plundering  the  rich.  Fortunately  for  the 
state  the  conspiracy  was  disclosed  by  one  of  the  conspirators 
to  the  consul,  Cicero,  who  denounced  him  in  his  famous  ora- 
tions, one  of  which  was  delivered  in  the  Senate  while  Cata- 
line was  present,  and  caused  him  to  take  refuge  in  his  camp 
in  Etruria.  There  he  was  defeated  and  slain  with  three  thou- 
sand of  his  followers.  Five  of  his  fellow-conspirators  were 
subsequently  condemned  to  death,  and  Cicero  put  the  Sen- 
ate's order  into  execution  (62  B.  C). 

On  returning  to  Italy  from  his  eastern  conquests,  Pompey, 
like  Sulla  previously,  was  given  a  magnificent  triumph.  Un- 
like Sulla,  however,  he  disbanded  his  army  at  the  seashore, 
thinking  the  merit  of  the  victories  he  had  achieved  would 
induce  the  senate  to  confirm  his  treaties  in  the  East  and  re- 
ward his  veterans  with  grants  of  land. 

The  influence  of  Lucullus,  who  had  been  deposed  in  the 


94  WAR  OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

same  field,  prevailed  with  the  senate.  However,  the  latter 
declined  to  confirm  Pompey's  acts  or  reward  his  soldiers,  and 
thus  Pompey  came  to  have  a  grievance  against  that  body. 

It  happened  that  another  individual,  one  Gaius  Julius 
Caesar,  also  had  a  pique  against  the  Senate.  Caesar  had 
been  refused  a  triumph  on  his  return  from  Spain,  and,  hav- 
ing held  the  offices  of  military  tribune,  quaestor,  aedile,  pon- 
tifex  maximus,  and  praetor,  he  felt  his  dignity  insulted.  Ac- 
cordingly, Caesar  and  Pompey  entered  into  a  coalition,  to 
which  Crassus,  another  aspirant  for  wealth  and  honor,  was 
admitted. 

By  the  power  of  these  three  men  (Triumvirs),  Caesar  was 
first  made  consul,  then  all  the  acts  of  Pompey  in  the  East 
were  confirmed,  and  an  agrarian  law  passed  providing  for 
his  veterans,  and  which  also  assigned  sections  of  land  in 
Campania  to  needy  Roman  citizens.  A  law  remitting  one- 
third  the  amount  successful  bidders  had  offered  for  the 
privilege  of  collecting  the  taxes  of  Asia,  was  especially  pleas- 
ing to  Crassus,  and  to  certain  capitalists  involved  in  the 
transaction.  Caesar,  as  consul,  was  notable  for  the  amount 
he  accomplished.  At  the  close  of  his  term  Caesar  was  made 
governor  of  Cisalpine  Gaul,  which  then  meant  little  more 
than  the  valley  of  the  Po ;  Illyricum,  a  strip  north  of  Mace- 
donia across  the  Adriatic  Sea,  and  Norbonensis,  a  territory 
about  the  lower  part  of  the  Rhone. 

In  selecting  Gaul  for  his  province,  Caesar  must  have  de- 
cided that  Rome  thereafter  should  be  a  military  power  which 
would  control  the  political ;  that  Gaul  being  the  nearest  prov- 
ince in  which  to  attain  military  prestige,  the  conquest  of 
Gaul  was  necessary  to  the  protection  of  Rome,  as  it  had  al- 
ready been  twice  invaded  from  the  north,  and  finally,  that 
Rome  and  Italy,  overcrowded,  needed  new  lands  for  coloni- 
zation. 


CAESAR 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  95 

Within  the  period  of  eight  years  he  brought  under  Roman 
authority  all  the  territory  bounded  by  the  Rhine,  Alps,  the 
Pyrenees  and  the  Atlantic,  or  what  now  corresponds  to  a  part 
of  Switzerland,  the  whole  of  France,  Belgium,  and  a  part 
of  Holland.  According  to  his  own  Commentaries,  he  first 
conquered  the  Helvetii,  north  of  Narbonensis.  This  stirred 
up  Ariovistus,  a  German  leader,  who  crossed  the  Rhine  and 
threatened  the  conquest  of  the  province,  and  whom  Caesar 
was  compelled  to  meet  and  repulse.  Then  the  Nervii  were 
subdued  in  northern  Gaul,  with  other  tribes.  Next  he  con- 
quered the  Veneti  on  the  Atlantic  coast  and  subdued  Aqui- 
tania.  In  55  B.  C,  he  made  his  first  invasion  of  Britain, 
landing  at  Deal,  nearest  France,  and  in  another  expedition 
the  following  year  conquered  a  part  of  the  country.  Then 
Caesar  quelled  an  insurrection  and  completed  the  conquest 
of  Gaul,  a  conquest  among  the  most  important  events  of  the 
world's  history  (51). 

It  was  a  favorite  method  with  Roman  politicians,  and  not 
entirely  obsolete  even  in  this  day,  to  have  political  rivals  re- 
moved with  as  little  friction  and  public  notice  as  possible. 
Cicero  and  Cato  were  the  most  influential  men  in  the  senate, 
and  it  seems  to  have  been  the  function  assigned  to  one  Clo- 
dius,  a  tribune,  whose  hostility  to  the  senate  could  be  de- 
pended upon,  to  stay  their  influence.  Cyprus  having  been 
annexed  to  the  Roman  domain,  Cato  was  disposed  of  by  be- 
ing appointed  governor  to  that  island.  Clodius  then  suc- 
ceeded in  passing  a  law  that  any  judge  guilty  of  putting  a 
Roman  citizen  to  death  without  trial  should  be  banished,  and 
as  this  clearly  referred  to  the  execution  of  Cataline's  asso- 
ciates by  Cicero,  the  latter  retired  to  Greece  and  devoted 
himself  to  literature. 

The  bonds  holding  the  Triumvirate  together  were  weak- 
ening.    Crassus,   after  taking  control   of  his  province  in 


96  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORLD 

Syria,  formed  the  plan  of  making  war  against  Parthia,  with 
the  design  of  pursuing  his  conquests  into  India,  where  he  ex- 
pected to  secure  great  treasures.  He  had  already  pillaged 
the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  to  the  complaint  of  the  Parthian 
king  that  the  treaty  of  neutrality  between  them  had  been 
violated  Crassus  sent  word  that  he  would  answer  when  at 
Selencia,  the  Parthian  capital.  Marching  along  the  Eu- 
phrates, and  conveying  his  supplies  by  boats  on  the  river,  he 
was  induced  to  turn  aside  into  the  plains  of  Mesopotamia, 
where  in  a  few  days  he  found  himself  in  an  arid  desert  with- 
out water  or  provisions.  Near  Carrae  he  was  attacked  by 
the  Parthians  and  compelled  to  retreat.  Surena,  the  Par- 
thian general,  under  a  pretext  of  making  peace,  drew  him 
into  a  conference  and  seized  his  person.  In  vain  his  guards 
tried  to  defend  Crassus.  They  and  their  general  were  slain. 
The  cupidity  and  ambition  which  had  led  him  to  engage  in 
an  unrighteous  war  had  resulted  in  a  shameful  death. 

Pompey  had  been  appointed  "sole  consul"  in  order  to 
meet  an  emergency.  The  city  had  been  distracted  by  street 
broils  between  armed  bands  of  men,  one  in  the  interests  of 
Clodius,  and  the  other  followers  of  T.  Ammus  Milo,  who 
claimed  to  be  defending  the  Senate.  Clodius  was  killed  in 
one  of  these  conflicts,  his  body  was  burned  in  the  Forum  by 
the  infuriated  mob,  and  the  senate  house  set  on  fire  and  con- 
sumed. Pompey  restored  order,  and  was  so  highly  regarded 
for  this  act  that  the  senate  renewed  his  authority  in  Spain 
for  five  years. 

The  death  of  Crassus  destroyed  the  equilibrium  in  the  re- 
lations of  Pompey  and  Caesar.  Each  wished  to  reign  and 
to  reign  alone,  and  Pompey's  appointment  as  sole  consul, 
however  urgent,  was  not  calculated  to  allay  any  feelings  of 
jealousy  which  might  exist  in  the  mind  of  Caesar.  Caesar 
remembered  this  at  a  meeting  in  Lucca  (56  B.  C),  where  the 


THE   ITAUAN    PENINSUI<A  97 

triple  alliance  was  renewed;  it  was  there  agreed  that  he 
should  receive  the  consulship  at  the  close  of  his  last  five  years 
in  Gaul,  and  Caesar  wished  to  retain  control  of  his  army  till 
elected  to  that  office.  Cato  had  threatened  to  prosecute  him 
as  soon  as  he  ceased  to  be  pro-consul.  Accordingly,  Caesar 
asked  the  privilege  of  being,  while  absent  from  Rome,  a  can- 
didate for  the  following  year.  He  offered  to  give  up  his 
province  and  his  army  if  Pompey  would  do  likewise,  but 
Pompey  declined  to  do  so. 

The  senate  now  asked  Caesar  for  two  of  his  legions  to  use 
in  the  Parthian  war.  Caesar  complied,  but  instead  of  being 
sent  to  the  East  they  were  stationed  in  Campania.  Caesar 
was  then  asked  to  send  more  of  his  legions,  and  he  agreed  to 
give  up  eight  more,  if  permitted  to  retain  two  in  Cisalpine 
Gaul  till  the  time  of  election.  The  senate  would  not  accede 
to  this  and  declared  that  he  must  relinquish  his  province  and 
entire  army  by  a  certain  date  or  be  regarded  as  a  public 
enemy.    It  was  war  or  peace,  and  he  chose  war. 

Assembling  his  troops  he  crossed  the  Alps,  and,  arriving 
at  the  banks  of  the  Rubicon,  the  stream  separating  his  prov- 
ince, he  is  reported  to  have  said :  "What  misery  may  I  bring 
upon  my  country  if  I  pass  this  river,  but  to  hesitate  is  to 
lose.  The  die  is  cast.  The  injustice  of  my  enemies  calls 
me."  Crossing  the  river  he  hastened  to  Rimini,  which  he 
seized.  Pompey,  unprepared  for  so  sudden  a  move,  as  he 
could  not  rely  upon  the  two  legions  which  the  senate  had 
taken  from  Caesar,  withdrew  to  Brundisium.  Caesar  fol- 
lowed, but  Pompey  managed  to  escape  to  Dyrrachium,  and. 
as  Caesar  had  no  fleet,  he  returned  to  Rome.  The  citizens 
there  recalled  the  proscription  of  Sulla,  but  Caesar's  mod- 
eration reassured  them,  and,  in  fact,  brought  him  many 
supporters. 

Pompey  had  an  army  with  him  in  Greece  and  another  in 


98  WAR  OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

Spain  under  his  lieutenants ;  so  Caesar  was  between  the  two. 
Having  no  fleet  he  despatched  his  Gallic  legions  across  the 
Pyrenees  into  Spain,  and,  after  quieting  the  fears  of  the 
Roman  people,  joined  his  army,  there  besieged  Marseilles, 
and  soon  defeated  the  forces  under  lieutenants  of  Pompey. 
On  returning  to  Rome  he  found  himself  proclaimed  dic- 
tator, an  office  he  modestly  declined,  contenting  himself  with 
that  of  consul. 

In  October,  49  B.  C,  Caesar,  having  collected  his  army 
and  what  ships  he  could,  transported  his  army  into  Epirus. 
Pompey  had  meanwhile  assembled  a  powerful  army  at  Dyr- 
rachium,  and  in  the  first  attack  Caesar  was  repulsed.  Re- 
treating then  across  the  peninsula,  in  order  to  draw  Pompey 
away  from  his  supplies,  Caesar  awaited  his  pursuing  army 
at  Pharsalia  in  Thessaly,  where  their  forces  joined  battle 
May  12,  48  B.  C.  Caesar  had  but  twenty  thousand  men, 
and  Pompey  double  that  number,  but,  perceiving  that  Pom- 
pey's  cavalry  were  superior  in  numbers  and  efficiency,  Cae- 
sar placed  six  cohorts  of  infantry,  especially  equipped,  behind 
his  own  few  squadrons  of  horse  in  order  to  throw  the  en- 
emy's horse  into  disorder  when  they  should  attempt  to  turn 
his  flank.  He  expressly  told  these  cohorts  that  upon  them 
he  relied  for  victory.  As  Pompey  anticipated,  his  cavalry 
easily  put  that  of  Caesar  to  flight,  but  then  advancing  to 
turn  the  flank,  they  were  thrown  into  irretrievable  disorder, 
and  these  six  cohorts  continuing  their  charge  upon  the  in- 
fantry, with  Caesar's  other  cohorts  closing  in  from  all  sides, 
the  result  was  a  rout  of  Pompey's  forces.  "The  battle  of 
Pharsalos,"  says  Freeman,  "is  one  of  the  most  important 
battles  in  history,  as  it  really  ended  the  Roman  Common- 
wealth, and  began  the  Roman  Empire,  which  we  may  almost 
say  has  gone  on  ever  since." 

Pompey  fled  in  the  dress  of  a  civilian  from  the  battlefield 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  99 

of  Pharsalos  to  the  mouth  of  the  Peneus,  where  he  sailed 
for  Egypt,  expecting  to  find  a  friend  in  King  Ptolemy, 
whom  he  had  previously  instructed  and  assisted.  But  Ptol- 
emy, basely,  thought  this  an  opportunity  to  gain  the  friend- 
ship of  Ceasar.  Pompey  was  invited  to  land,  and  then,  in 
sight  of  his  wife,  Cornelia,  was  murdered  in  cold  blood. 

Caesar  set  out  from  Greece  in  pursuit  of  Pompey,  and  was 
greatly  shocked  on  arriving  in  Alexandria  to  find  his  late 
rival  killed  and  his  head  presented  to  him.  The  great  con- 
queror is  reported  to  have  shed  tears  at  the  sight.  Shortly 
afterwards,  as  a  result  of  a  different  form  of  emotion,  he 
was  fascinated  by  the  charms  of  Cleopatra  and  adjudged  her 
the  crown  of  Egypt  in  place  of  her  brother,  Ptolemy.  Highly 
displeased  at  this,  Ptolemy,  with  a  strong  army,  attacked 
Caesar  who  entrenched  himself  in  the  palace  at  Alexandria. 
Though  having  less  than  four  thousand  men,  the  Roman 
general  successfully  resisted  till  reinforcements  arrived, 
when  his  legions  charged  and  put  the  entire  Egyptian  army 
to  the  sword.  Ptolemy  was  drowned  in  the  river  Nile,  thus 
rewarded  for  the  murder  of  his  friend  Pompey,  his  former 
tutor  and  benefactor. 

On  his  way  back  to  Rome,  Caesar  passed  through  Asia 
Minor,  where,  as  he  had  been  informed,  Pharnaces,  the  son 
and  assassin  of  Mithridates,  late  king  of  Pontus,  was  stir- 
ring up  a  revolt  in  that  kingdom.  His  progress  was  so  rapid 
and  so  quickly  did  he  destroy  the  army  of  Pharnaces  and 
restore  order  in  the  Asiatic  provinces,  that  he  made  his  re- 
port in  the  famous  words :  "Veni,  vidi,  vici."  Returning  to 
Rome,  Caesar  was  made  dictator  for  ten  years. 

The  Pompeian  leaders  in  Africa,  including  Cato,  great- 
grandson  of  Cato  the  Elder,  and  Mettelus  Scipio,  were  not 
yet  subdued.  Pompey's  former  lieutenant,  L,abienus,  was 
also  in  Egypt,  and  with  the  assistance  of  the  King  of  Nu- 


100  WAR  OR   A   UNITED   WORLD 

midia  these  officers  determined  to  make  a  last  stand  against 
the  conqueror. 

In  this  expedition,  when  Caesar  landed  on  the  African 
shore,  it  is  said  he  fell  prostrate;  but  to  prevent  any  infer- 
ence of  ill-omen,  he  cried  out :  "Africa,  I  seize  thee !" — a 
claim  which  subsequent  events  sustained.  At  the  battle  of 
Thapsus,  Cato,  held  in  the  bounds  of  Utica,  resolved  not  to 
survive  the  ruin  of  his  party.  While  reflecting  on  the  phil- 
osophy of  the  Phoedo,  Plato's  dialogue  on  the  immortality  of 
the  soul,  he  ended  his  life  by  throwing  himself  on  his  sword 
(46  B.C.). 

Following  the  battle  of  Thapsus,  Labienus  had  gone  to 
Spain  to  take  command  of  one  of  the  armies  which  the  two 
sons  of  Pompey  had  mustered  in  that  province.  Caesar 
hastened  thither  and  found  the  enemy  entrenched  in  the 
southern  part  of  the  province,  near  the  city  of  Munda.  The 
battle  occurred  March  17,  45  B.  C.  The  first  charges  of  his 
troops  were  unfavorable,  and  Caesar,  it  is  said,  on  seeing  his 
legions  give  way,  seized  a  shield  and  advanced  within  ten 
paces  of  the  enemy.  This  had  the  effect  of  reanimating  his 
veterans,  and  the  camp  of  the  Pompeians,  as  well  as  the  town 
of  Munda  was  taken  by  assault.  The  Pompeians  lost  thirty 
thousand  men  and  Caesar  but  fifteen  hundred  killed  and 
wounded.  One  of  the  sons  of  Pompey  was  slain  with  Labi- 
enus, and  the  fate  of  the  other  son  was  probably  the  same,  as 
he  was  never  heard  of  afterwards  (45  B.  C). 

The  victory  at  Munda  may  be  said  to  have  given  peace  to 
the  whole  world,  as  Caesar  controlled  Rome  and  had  no 
more  enemies  to  subdue.  On  his  return  four  splendid  tri- 
umphs were  given  him — one  for  Gaul,  one  for  Egypt,  one  for 
Pontus,  and  one  for  Numidia.  No  reference  to  the  civil 
war  was  made  and  no  Roman  citizens  were  in  the  procession 
of  his  captives.    No  massacres,  no  proscriptions,  no  confisca- 


THE   ITALIAN    PENINSULA  101 

tions  followed.  Caesar  was  great  enough  to  forgive  his 
enemies  and  to  grant  equal  rights  to  friend  and  foe  alike. 

Caesar  reformed  the  provincial  system  by  making  each 
governor  directly  responsible  to  the  dictator,  thus  putting 
a  check  upon  the  system  of  robbery  in  the  collection  of  taxes. 
He  reformed  the  calendar  in  a  way  which  has  been  accepted 
to  the  present  day.  He  ordered  the  rebuilding  of  Carthage 
and  of  Corinth,  and  his  plans  included  codifying  the  Roman 
laws,  providing  for  public  libraries,  improving  the  city  archi- 
tecture, draining  the  Pontine  marshes,  cutting  a  canal 
through  the  Isthmus  of  Corinth,  and  extending  the  empire 
to  the  Euphrates,  the  Danube  and  the  Rhine. 

He  reduced  the  number  of  persons  in  Rome  to  whom 
grain  was  distributed  from  three  hundred  and  twenty  thou- 
sand to  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand,  because  he  believed 
the  government  should  not  help  those  able  to  provide  for 
themselves.  He  provided  means  of  employment  for  the  idle 
by  constructing  new  buildings  and  other  public  works,  and 
enforced  the  law  requiring  one-third  the  labor  on  landed 
estates  to  be  free  labor,  and  enacted  a  bankrupt  law  by  which 
a  debtor  could  escape  imprisonment  by  turning  over  any 
property  he  possessed  to  his  creditors. 

He  believed  that  one  man  should  control  in  government, 
but  for  the  benefit  of  all.  He  enlarged  the  senate  to  nine 
hundred  members,  of  all  classes — sons  of  freedmen  as  well 
as  nobles;  Gauls  and  Spaniards  as  well  as  military  officers. 
It  was  to  be  a  body  for  advising  the  sovereign  of  the  needs 
of  all  sections,  and  he  extended  the  franchise  to  the  utmost 
limits  of  the  realm. 

Caesar  was  made  perpetual  dictator,  while  the  titles  of 
"Imperator"  and  "Father  of  his  Country"  were  voted  to 
him.  Public  buildings  and  temples  were  filled  with  his  stat- 
ues, while  religious  rites,  festivals  and  sacrifices  were  de- 


102  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORLD 

creed  to  him.  It  is  said  that  the  senate  granted  such  ex- 
travagant honors  for  the  purpose  of  making  him  odious  with 
the  people,  and  that,  not  seeing  the  snare,  Caesar  allowed 
himself  to  be  dazzled  and  misled. 

He  had  contemplated  a  war  against  the  Parthians  to 
avenge  the  death  of  Crassus.  According  to  the  Sibylline 
books  it  was  pretended  the  Parthians  could  be  conquered 
only  by  a  king,  and  so  it  was  proposed  that  Caesar  should 
bear  the  title  of  Dictator  in  Italy  but  King  in  all  the  coun- 
tries conquered.  This  proposition  led  to  a  conspiracy  in- 
stigated by  Brutus,  Cassius  and  others,  all  of  whom  were 
more  or  less  under  obligations  to  Caesar. 

The  day  this  title  was  to  be  conferred  Caesar  was  slain. 
When  he  entered,  the  senate  arose  as  if  from  respect.  Cim- 
ber,  a  chief  conspirator,  approached  as  if  to  offer  a  petition, 
which  Caesar  seemed  unwilling  to  receive.  Cimber  seized 
his  robe  and  pulled  it  from  his  shoulders.  At  this,  the  sig- 
nal agreed  upon,  the  conspirators  threw  themselves  upon 
Caesar  in  a  body.  He  fell,  pierced  with  twenty-three  wounds, 
and  expired  at  the  foot  of  Pompey's  statue. 

While  it  cannot  be  denied  that  Caesar  aimed  to  be  an  ab- 
solute Dictator  of  Rome,  neither  can  it  be  denied  that  his 
plans  and  purposes  were  the  broadest  and  wisest  ever  pre- 
sented for  the  government  of  that  domain.  While  he  had 
destroyed  the  lives  of  perhaps  a  million  men  in  battle  abroad 
and  many  thousands  in  the  civil  wars  at  home,  measured 
both  as  a  soldier  and  a  statesman,  he  has  rarely  been  sur- 
passed in  all  history. 


KING  VICTOR  EMMANUEL 

OF    ITALV 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE. 

A  period  of  much  confusion,  lasting  for  some  thirteen 
years,  followed  the  death  of  Julius  Caesar.  His  murderers 
had  expected  the  Roman  people  to  hail  them  as  deliverers 
from  a  despot,  but  it  did  not  prove  so.  Marcus  Antonius 
made  a  speech  over  his  body  as  it  lay  in  the  Forum,  which 
aroused  the  wrath  of  the  citizens  against  Caesar's  enemies, 
terrified  the  Senate  and  made  the  army  furious.  Octavius, 
the  grand-nephew  and  adopted  son  of  Caesar,  was  in  Greece 
when  he  heard  of  his  uncle's  fate,  and  as  was  proper  for  the 
heir  to  do,  he  shortly  afterwards  presented  himself  in  Rome, 
and  used  a  considerable  part  of  his  inherited  wealth  in  se- 
curing partisans  and  increasing  his  own  popularity.  Antony, 
as  consul,  and  because  of  his  military  connections,  possessed 
almost  absolute  authority.  But  he  wisely  decided  to  unite 
his  fortunes  with  Octavius,  and  they  joined  to  themselves 
Lepidus,  a  wealthy  man  of  but  slight  genius,  thus  constitut- 
ing what  is  known  as  the  second  Roman  Triumvirate. 

Later,  the  friendly  relations  between  Octavius  and  An- 
tony were  broken  and  Octavius  was  successful  in  defeating 
Antony  at  the  battle  of  Mutina,  in  that  part  of  Cisalpine 
Gaul  which  Antony  was  then  trying  to  wrest  from  Decimus 


104  WAR  OR   A   UNITED   WORLD 

Brutus.  Because  of  this  victory  Octavius  demanded  from 
the  senate  that  he  receive  a  triumph  and  the  consulship.  To 
this  Cicero  demurred,  as  he  really  intended  Brutus  to  have 
this  honor.  Whereupon  Octavius  took  possession  of  the  city 
and  enforced  his  claims  with  the  sword.  Then  the  new 
coalition  was  made,  and  the  western  provinces  were  divided 
among  themselves  with  the  understanding  that  the  eastern 
provinces  should  be  similarly  treated  after  Brutus  and  Cas- 
sius  had  been  driven  out. 

It  will  be  recalled  how  Cicero  was  put  to  death  December 
7,  43  B.  C,  many  other  senators,  knights  and  citizens  being 
proscribed  and  slain;  how  Cassius  and  Brutus,  being  de- 
feated in  two  battles  at  Phillippi,  each  committed  suicide, 
and  how  Cleopatra,  having  gained  an  ascendency  over  An- 
tony at  Tarsus  in  Cilicia,  took  him  away  to  Egypt  with  her. 
Meanwhile  (41  B.  C),  Octavius  had  defeated  Antony's 
brother  Lucius  in  a  short  war  in  Persia,  and  Lepidus,  who 
had  been  expelled  from  the  triumvirate.  Antony  having 
repudiated  Octavia,  his  wife,  and  sister  of  Octavius  at  Ath- 
ens, Octavius  set  sail  with  a  fleet  of  nearly  three  hundred 
vessels  and  met  and  defeated  the  combined  fleets  of  Antony 
and  Cleopatra  near  the  promontory  of  Actium,  the  Egyptian 
ships  withdrawing  from  the  battle  at  a  critical  juncture. 
This  led  to  the  suicide  of  Antony  in  the  arms  of  his  mistress, 
and  to  that  of  Cleopatra  herself. 

Egypt  now  became  a  Roman  province,  and  Octavius,  or 
Augustus — as  he  chose  to  have  himself  called — master  of  the 
world.  Consul  for  the  third  time  in  29  A.  D.,  in  command 
of  all  the  Roman  armies,  "Prince  of  the  Senate,"  he  was 
made  censor,  while  the  office  of  tribune  made  his  person  in- 
violable, that  of  pro-consul  gave  him  authority  over  all  the 
provinces,  and  finally  that  of  supreme  pontiff,  which  came 
to  him  at  the  death  of  Lepidus,  gave  him  complete  authority 


THE   ROMAN    EMPIRE  105 

in  matters  of  religion.  Augustus  has,  by  many  historians, 
been  regarded  as  a  wise  and  successful  statesman,  and  a  chief 
reason  for  this  view  is  the  fact  that  he  was  not  cruel  by  na- 
ture, strove  to  promote  culture  and  the  arts  of  peace,  and 
administer  justice.  That  he  did  strive  to  extend  his  domain 
by  force  of  arms,  is  true,  though,  to  avoid  making  his  army 
a  burden  to  the  people,  he  reduced  the  number  of  his  legions 
from  fifty  to  twenty-five,  thus  maintaining  a  standing  army 
of  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  men. 

One  of  the  regrets  of  his  life  was  the  defeat  of  his  legions 
under  Varus  in  Germany,  by  the  Teuton  chief,  Arminius, 
which  event  prevented  the  extension  of  the  empire  farther 
north  and  really  led  to  its  overthrow.  This  happened  in  the 
year  9  A.  D.,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Detmold,  the  capital 
of  Lippe-Detmold.  A  monument  stands  at  Grotenburg,  the 
highest  point  of  the  Teutoburger  Wald,  1,200  feet  above  sea 
level,  a  colossal  statue  of  Hermann,  or  Arminius,  Chief  of 
the  Cherusci,  commemorative  of  his  victory  over  the  Ro- 
mans. For  eight  years  the  Gauls  had  struggled  against  the 
Roman  armies,  and  their  great  chieftain,  Vincingetorix,  who 
had  brought  Caesar  to  the  extremity  of  peril  at  Alesia,  after 
gracing  the  latter 's  triumph  in  the  streets  of  Rome,  had  been 
butchered  in  a  dungeon.  This  Arminius  knew  and  dis- 
trusted the  plans  of  the  Roman  general,  Tiberius,  as  well  as 
those  of  his  successor,  Varus,  and  secretly  resolved  to  thwart 
them.  The  policy  of  Augustus,  if  more  pacific  than  that  of 
his  predecessors,  was  no  less  imperious.  Besides  completing 
the  conquest  of  Spain,  his  generals  had  extended  the  Roman 
frontier  to  the  Danube,  and  had  brought  into  subjection  all 
the  territory  south  of  that  river  now  belonging  to  Austria, 
as  well  as  East  Switzerland,  Lower  Wertemberg,  the  Tyrol, 
Batavia  and  the  Valtelline.  To  the  list  of  great  rivers  con- 
trolled by  the  Romans,  the  Nile,  the  Tagus,  the  Seine,  the 


106  WAR   OR   A   UNITED   WORLD 

Rhone,  the  Danube  and  the  Rhine,  it  was  desired  now  to  add 
the  Elbe,  when  all  Germany  would  become  no  more  than  a 
mere  vassal  to  Roman  authority.  Arminius  had,  too,  a  per- 
sonal reason  for  his  hatred  of  Rome,  as  his  wife  had  been 
taken  from  him  by  her  father,  and  he  himself  accused  of 
treason,  while  his  brother  Flavius  could  not  be  induced  to 
leave  the  Roman  service  as  a  soldier.  Arminius  is  given 
credit  for  the  secret  organization  of  armed  men  who  were 
to  strike  when  he  gave  the  signal,  and  also  for  the  revolt  of 
the  tribes  near  the  Wesser  and  the  Ems,  duly  reported  to 
Varus  as  requiring  his  immediate  attention.  This  message 
came  just  after  a  succession  of  heavy  rains,  which  made 
military  movements  very  difficult. 

Varus,  with  three  legions — about  15,000  Roman  infantry, 
some  nine  hundred  cavalry,  and  an  equal  number  of  allied 
forces  from  the  conquered  territory — set  his  army  in  motion 
eastward  in  a  line  parallel  with  the  course  of  the  Lippe  river. 
In  the  vast  forests  of  what  now  constitutes  the  little  princi- 
pality of  Lippe,  the  soil  partly  sodden  with  rain  at  the  time, 
Arminius  made  his  attack.  All  the  auxiliary  forces  of  Va- 
rus at  once  deserted  him.  According  to  the  meager  accounts 
derived  chiefly  from  Tacitus,  the  horses  were  killed  first. 
This  was  due  somewhat  to  the  fact  that  the  cavalry  general, 
Numonius  Vala,  attempted  to  escape  with  his  squadrons. 
The  riders  as  well  as  their  steeds  were  all  cut  to  pieces. 
Varus  himself,  after  being  wounded,  committed  suicide 
rather  than  fall  into  the  enemies'  hands.  One  lieutenant  gen- 
eral surrendered,  but  according  to  report  he  and  his  men 
were  sacrificed  in  a  gorge  in  the  mountain  ridge,  through 
which  runs  a  road  between  Panderborn  and  Pyrmont.  Here, 
according  to  tradition,  stood  one  of  the  sacred  groves.  After 
the  destruction  of  the  army  of  Varus,  the  Roman  garrisons 
throughout  Germany  were  assailed  and  cut  off,  and  in  a  few 


THE   ROMAN    EMPIRE  107 

weeks  the  German  soil  was  freed  from  the  Roman  invader. 

Arminius  was  assassinated  in  the  thirty-seventh  year  of 
his  age  by  some  of  his  own  kindred,  but  a  peculiar  sequence 
of  his  great  victory  was  that  Arminius  came  to  be  wor- 
shipped as  a  savior  of  mankind.  In  the  language  of  Prof. 
Creasy:  "As  time  passed  on,  the  gratitude  of  ancient  Ger- 
many to  her  great  deliverer  grew  into  adoration,  and  divine 
honors  were  paid  for  centuries  to  Arminius  by  every  tribe 
of  the  Low  Germanic  division  of  the  Teutonic  races.  The 
Irmin-sul,  or  the  column  of  Hermann,  near  Eresbergh,  the 
modern  Stadtberg,  was  the  chosen  object  of  worship  to  the 
descendants  of  the  Cherusci,  the  old  Saxons,  and  in  defense 
of  which  they  fought  most  desperately  against  Charlemagne 
and  his  Christianized  Franks."  "Irmin,  in  the  cloudy  Olym- 
pus of  Teutonic  belief,"  says  Palgrave,  "appears  as  a  king 
and  a  warrior,  and  the  pillar,  the  'Irmin-sul,'  bearing  the 
statue,  and  considered  as  the  symbol  of  the  deity,  was  the 
Palladium  of  the  Saxon  nation  until  the  temple  of  Eres- 
bergh was  destroyed  by  Charlemagne,  and  the  column  itself 
transferred  to  the  monastery  of  Corbey." 

The  reign  of  Augustus,  though  comparatively  peaceful, 
was  marked  by  the  conquests  of  Drusus,  of  Cantabria,  Rhae- 
tia,  Vindelicia  and  Moesia.  These  conquests  were  com- 
pleted by  Drusus,  son  of  Tiberius,  under  his  father's  reign, 
while  the  territorial  gains  of  Germanicus  (nephew  of  Ti- 
berius) in  Germany,  which  had  been  lost  by  Varus,  were  in 
part  regained  by  the  same  after  Tiberius  came  to  the  throne 
in  14  A.  D.  The  reigns  of  the  Julian  emperors,  so  called 
from  their  relation  to  Julius  Caesar,  and  which  ended  with 
the  suicide  of  Nero  in  68  A.  D.,  were  more  marked  by  petty 
intrigues  and  cruelties  than  foreign  conquests. 

Of  the  four  who  succeeded  Augustus,  Tiberius  was  per- 
haps the  ablest,  though  not  deficient  in  the  exercise  of  tyran- 


108  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORLD 

nical  power.  He  established  the  system  of  espionage,  and 
also  brought  together  a  body  of  praetorian  cohorts,  both 
measures  with  a  view  of  protecting  his  own  person.  Sejanus, 
commander  of  these  cohorts,  taking  advantage  of  the  Em- 
peror's confidence,  caused  the  murder  of  Tiberius'  son, 
Drusus,  and  committed  other  treacherous  acts  with  a  view  to 
his  own  advancement,  but  his  plans  were  discovered  and  he 
was  strangled.  Such  a  vigorous  prosecution  of  those  asso- 
ciated in  the  conspiracy  and  under  suspicion  followed,  under 
the  law  of  Lex  majestatis,  or  lese-majesty,  as  to  induce  a 
reign  of  terror  in  Rome. 

Caligula,  selected  by  the  senate  to  rule  because  he  was  the 
son  of  a  successful  general,  Germanicus,  well  illustrates  what 
an  insane  man  may  do  when  in  power. 

Claudius,  brother  of  Germanicus  and  uncle  of  Caligula, 
who,  with  his  generals,  Aulus  Plautius  and  Vespasian,  made 
a  partial  conquest  of  Britain  (43-45  A.  D.),  though  a  wiser 
ruler  in  some  respects,  was  a  victim  of  his  freedmen  and  his 
wives.  One  of  these  freed  slaves,  Narcissus,  caused  the  em- 
press, Messalina,  mother  of  Claudius'  two  children,  to  be  put 
to  death.  Claudius  then  married  his  niece,  Agrippina,  daugh- 
ter of  Germanicus,  who  induced  the  emperor  to  adopt  her  son 
Nero,  by  a  former  marriage,  as  his  successor.  Whether  she 
poisoned  the  legitimate  heir,  Britannicus,  or  whether  this  was 
done  by  Nero,  is  uncertain,  but  it  is  unquestioned  that  her 
imperious  temper  led  Nero  to  have  her  stabbed  to  death. 
This  was  one  of  the  first  of  Nero's  crimes,  and  is  said  to  have 
been  inspired  by  Poppaea,  "the  most  beautiful  and  wickedest 
woman  in  Rome."  Then  followed  the  murder  of  his  first 
wife,  Octavia;  Poppaea,  his  second;  Seneca,  his  former  in- 
structor; the  poet  Lucan,  and  thousands  of  Roman  citizens. 
To  his  reign  is  credited  the  first  persecution  of  the  Chris- 
tians, the  burning  of  Rome,  and  the  defeat  of  the  Parthians 


THE   ROMAN    EMPIRE  109 

in  Armenia  by  Corbulo.  The  last  three  Julian  emperors  all 
met  violent  deaths:  Caligula  was  murdered  by  Chaereas, 
Claudius  poisoned  by  Agrippina,  and  Nero,  after  planning  to 
kill  all  his  own  generals  and  senators,  in  order  to  anticipate 
a  decree  of  the  senate,  slew  himself  with  his  sword. 

The  power  and  arrogance  of  the  army  was  now  displayed 
in  the  fact  that  three  emperors  in  succession,  Galba,  Otho  and 
Vitellius  (68-69  A.  D.),  were  created  by  one  factor  or  an- 
other of  the  military  forces.  The  army  in  Spain  proclaimed 
Galba,  a  man  of  seventy,  of  patrician  birth  and  a  fine  record 
as  a  military  man,  but  the  legions  of  the  Rhine  were  against 
him,  and  one  of  his  former  lieutenants,  Otho,  who  had  been 
the  husband  of  the  infamous  Poppaea  Sabina,  caused  Galba 
to  be  murdered  through  a  revolt  of  the  praetorian  soldiers 
and  secured  the  title  of  emperor  himself.  The  armies  of 
Germany  having  proclaimed  another  general,  Vitellius,  em- 
peror, the  clash  of  these  forces,  as  they  met  to  decide  the 
question  in  north  Italy,  was  favorable  to  Vitellius.  This 
was  the  battle  of  Bedriacum,  where  Otho,  seeing  himself 
vanquished,  committed  suicide,  his  reign  having  lasted  for 
but  three  months.  Almost  immediately  the  legions  of  the 
East  revolted  in  favor  of  their  commander,  Vespasian,  and 
on  the  same  battlefield  in  northern  Italy  where  Otho's  army 
was  overcome  were  the  forces  of  Vitellius  defeated.  Thus 
the  most  famous  glutton  in  all  history,  who  spent  on  his  table 
more  than  forty  million  dollars  during  his  brief  reign  of 
eight  months,  and  whose  voracity  would  shortly  have  ruined 
the  empire,  was  killed  by  the  Roman  people. 

Vespasian,  head  of  the  Flavian  family,  proved  himself  an 
efficient  ruler.  He  had  but  recently  subdued  the  whole  of 
Palestine,  and  after  the  suppression  of  a  revolt  in  Gaul  under 
Claudius  Civillius,  his  son  Titus  completed  the  work  of  de- 
stroying Jerusalem.     One  million,  one  hundred  thousand 


110  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORLD 

persons  are  estimated  to  have  perished  miserably  in  the  siege, 
and  the  remaining  inhabitants  were  dispersed  and  scattered 
among  all  nations.  Vespasian  built  the  Colosseum,  expelled 
from  the  senate  those  members  conspicuous  for  their  vices, 
reformed  the  tribunals,  and,  above  all  else,  enforced  military- 
discipline.  In  his  reign,  Lycia,  Rhodes,  Thrace,  Cilicia,  By- 
zantium and  Samos  were  conquered.  During  the  reign  of 
his  son  and  successor,  Titus,  much  was  done  by  way  of  erect- 
ing places  of  amusement  and  giving  spectacles  to  increase  the 
happiness  of  the  people. 

The  chief  event  of  importance  in  the  reign  of  Domitian 
(81-96)  was  the  extension  of  the  Roman  power  by  Julius 
Agricola  in  Britain  (86  A.  D.),  though,  fearful  lest  his 
achievements  might  make  him  too  popular,  the  cowardly 
Domitian  ordered  him  home.  Agricola's  son-in-law,  Taci- 
tus, has  left  us  a  contrast  between  the  virtues  of  the  lieu- 
tenant and  the  vices  of  the  emperor.  The  second  persecu- 
tion of  Christians  is  recorded  in  the  reign  of  Domitian. 

The  reigns  of  the  "five  good  emperors,"  Nerva,  Trajan, 
Hadrian,  Antonius  Pius  and  Marcus  Aurelius,  though  mark- 
ing a  period  of  general  prosperity,  were  not  devoid  of  strife 
and  warfare.  Nerva,  a  native  of  Crete,  was  chosen  by  the 
senate,  and  during  the  two  years  of  his  reign  peace  prevailed. 
He  recalled  exiles,  freed  many  prisoners,  and  prohibited  per- 
secutions of  the  Christians.  At  his  death  he  named  his  suc- 
sessor,  Trajan,  regarded  as  the  most  accomplished,  with  the 
possible  exceptions  of  Julius  Caesar  and  Augustus,  of  the 
Roman  rulers.  Trajan  was  Spanish  by  birth,  and  not  averse 
to  war.  He  reduced  Dacia  to  a  Roman  province;  also  Ar- 
menia, Mesopotamia,  Assyria  and  a  part  of  Arabia.  Under 
Trajan  the  Roman  empire  reached  its  greatest  extent.  The 
third  persecution  of  Christians  (107  A.  D.)  is  said  to  have 
occurred  under  Trajan,  and  he  was  especially  severe  upon 


THE   ROMAN    EMPIRE  111 

the  Jews  of  Cyrene  who  had  murdered  200,000  of  his  sub- 
jects. Trajan  constructed  roads,  improved  the  water  sup- 
ply, restored  the  harbors,  built  new  baths,  and  made  Rome  a 
city  of  magnificent  public  buildings.  His  adopted  son,  Ha- 
drian, who  succeeded  him  (117),  was  averse  to  war  for  the 
purpose  of  foreign  conquest  as  less  essential  than  the  main- 
tainance  of  internal  prosperity.  He  voluntarily  abandoned 
the  conquests  of  Trajan  in  the  East,  including  the  provinces 
of  Assyria,  Armenia  and  Mesopotamia,  and  only  against  the 
Jews,  who  revolted  during  his  reign  (135),  did  he  display 
warlike  severity.  In  being  banished  from  Judea,  it  is  said 
that  580,000  Jews  were  destroyed  by  the  Roman  soldiers. 
He  erected  a  temple  to  Jupiter  in  the  new  Jerusalem  which 
he  built.  A  wall  was  also  built  during  his  reign  from  New- 
castle to  Carlisle  in  Britain,  to  head  off  the  Caledonians. 
The  career  of  Hadrian's  adopted  son  and  successor,  Antoni- 
nus Pius  (138-161  A.  D.),  is  cited  in  history  as  a  "reign 
without  events,"  because  so  devoid  of  conquests,  calamities 
and  internal  discord.  However,  the  laws  which  were  to  be 
embodied  in  the  constitutions  of  future  nations  were  per- 
fected by  the  maxims  of  Antonius  Pius  and  the  jurists  of  his 
empire.  During  the  reign  of  his  adopted  son  and  successor, 
Marcus  Aurelius  (161-180  A.  D.),  one  of  the  wisest  of  the 
Roman  rulers,  the  empire  began  to  be  threatened  by  con- 
spiracies within  and  invasions  from  without.  The  emperor 
was  made  to  believe  that  the  Christians  through  their  secret 
meetings  were  responsible  for  these  internal  troubles  and  so 
issued  edicts  against  them.  He  also  repelled  the  invasion  of 
the  Parthians  and  the  Teutonic  hordes  of  the  West  who  be- 
gan to  press  upon  the  borders  of  the  empire.  A  war  with 
Parthia  was  waged  for  three  years,  one  with  the  Marcom- 
anni,  five  years ;  also  wars  with  the  Quadi,  the  Goths  and  the 
Franks. 


112  WAR  OR   A   UNITED   WORIyD 

With  the  death  of  Marcus  Aurelius  at  his  post  of  duty  in 
camp  at  Vienna,  the  turning  point  in  the  career  of  the  em- 
pire had  been  reached.  During  the  period  of  the  Military 
Despotism,  beginning  with  the  reign  of  Commodus  (180), 
to  the  accession  of  Diocletian  (284)  there  was  a  gradual  de- 
cline. The  factors  which  had  contributed  to  national  growth 
through  the  conquest  and  control  of  foreign  elements  now 
began  to  give  way  before  the  agitation  and  encroachment  of 
these  and  other  elements  from  without.  During  these  years 
(104  in  number)  the  soldiers  were  the  real  rulers  of  Rome, 
and  the  events  well  illustrate  what  a  pure  military  despotism 
is  bound  sooner  or  later  to  become — an  exponent  of  mere 
force  and  brutality.  Commodus  purchased  the  peace  of  the 
Germans,  and,  a  giant  in  strength,  sought  to  amuse  himself 
with  cruelties  and  debaucheries ;  he  was  poisoned  by  a  woman 
with  whom  he  was  enamored  and  whom  in  a  fit  of  anger  he 
had  previously  condemned  to  death.  Pertinax,  his  successor, 
was  elected  by  the  army,  and  slain  by  the  swords  of  the 
soldiers.  Didius  Julianus  bought  the  throne  at  auction  for  a 
sum  equal  to  $15,000,000,  and  from  a  commercial  point  of 
view  was  not  fairly  treated,  as  he  held  the  throne  about  two 
months,  and  was  then  condemned  to  death  by  the  senate. 
Septimus  Severus,  though  he  reorganized  and  strengthened 
the  army,  removed  the  last  vestige  of  authority  from  the 
senate.  His  reign  is  distinguished  for  the  fifth  persecution 
of  the  Christians,  the  death  of  50,000  of  his  soldiers  serving 
under  his  sons,  Caracalla  and  Geta,  in  Britain,  through 
plague,  and  the  building  of  a  wall  across  Britain  from  the 
Firth  of  Forth  (209).  Caracalla's  reign  is  conspicuous  for 
cruel  proscriptions  and  murders,  of  which  the  foulest  was 
that  of  Papinian,  the  greatest  of  Roman  jurists,  on  account 
of  the  refusal  of  the  latter  to  defend  the  emperor  in  his 


THE   ROMAN    EMPIRE  113 

crimes.  Caracalla  was  killed  by  his  successor,  Macrinus, 
who  was  himself  killed  by  the  soldiers  the  following  year. 
Elevated  to  the  throne  by  the  same  soldiers,  Heliogabalus, 
cousin  to  Caracalla  and  high  priest  of  the  sun  in  Syria,  stands 
forth  for  effeminacy,  debauchery,  brutality  and  contempt  of 
all  forms  of  honor  and  decency,  as  the  most  infamous  and 
repulsive  of  all  the  Roman  despots.  Despite  his  insane  pro- 
jects for  committing  suicide  "in  splendor,"  he  was  ignomini- 
ously  slaughtered. 

Alexander  Severus  (222-235  A.  D.)  affords  a  strong  con- 
trast to  his  predecessor,  and  in  fact  to  a  majority  of  the  mil- 
itary despots  in  the  praiseworthy  character  of  his  public  acts 
as  well  as  personal  life.  He  had  engraved  on  his  palace 
walls :  "Do  unto  others  as  you  would  have  them  do  to  you," 
and  made  this  his  rule  of  conduct.  The  distinguished  jurists 
Ulpian  and  Paullus  were  his  advisers.  He  successfully  re- 
sisted the  Persians  who  had  established  a  new  kingdom  in 
Parthia,  and  was  engaged  in  driving  back  the  Germans  when 
he  met  the  usual  fate — was  assassinated  by  Maximin,  who 
had  a  military  following  strong  enough  to  make  himself 
emperor.  He  was  of  gigantic  size  and  strength,  and  rivals 
Vitellius  in  the  accounts  of  his  voracity.  He  is  said  to  have 
consumed  eight  bottles  of  wine  and  forty  pounds  of  meat 
every  day.  On  assuming  the  diadem  he  put  to  death  all  his 
early  associates  who  knew  him  as  a  common  soldier,  includ- 
ing his  most  intimate  friends.  The  sixth  persecution  of 
Christians  is  credited  to  his  reign.  He  met  the  usual  fate — 
was  assassinated  by  his  troops  near  Aquileia  (236  A.  D.). 

Of  the  next  eleven  emperors,  Gordian  I  and  Gordian  II 
were  put  to  death  by  Pupienus  Maximus,  who,  with  Balbinus, 
after  brief  reigns,  shared  the  same  fate.  Gordian  III  routed 
the  Persians,  while  his  tribune,  Aurelius,  vanquished  the 


114  WAR  OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

Franks  at  Mayence ;  then  Gordian  was  put  to  death  by  Phil- 
ippus  the  Arab,  to  be  himself  killed  and  succeeded  by  Decius, 
who  was  slain  by  the  Goths,  251  A.  D.  Gallus,  an  officer 
under  Decius,  having  proclaimed  himself  emperor  and  con- 
cluded a  disgraceful  peace  with  the  Goths,  was  duly  mur- 
dered by  his  own  soldiers,  who  acknowledged  Aemilian  as 
emperor,  but  soon  served  him  in  the  same  way.  The  next 
emperor,  Valerian,  was  captured  by  Sapor  I,  King  of  Per- 
sia, and  after  languishing  for  three  years  in  abject  slavery, 
was  put  to  death.  His  skin  was  then  taken  off,  dyed  a  deep 
red  and  suspended  in  a  temple  to  signify  the  disgrace  of  the 
Roman  arms.  The  son  and  successor  of  Valerian,  Gallionus, 
was  a  detestable  creature  intent  upon  selfish  indulgences, 
who  was  killed  by  the  soldiers  and  succeeded  by  Claudius 
II,  268  A.  D. 

This  period  has  been  called  that  of  the  "Thirty  Tyrants," 
from  the  number  of  usurpers  that  appeared  in  all  parts  of 
the  empire.  Gibbon  enumerates  nineteen  of  these,  includ- 
ing Odenatus  and  Zenobia,  in  Syria;  Macrinus,  in  Egypt: 
Piso  and  Valens,  in  Greece ;  Areolus,  in  Rhetia ;  Posthumius, 
Victorinus  and  Tetricus,  in  Gaul.  A  plague  decimated  the 
realm  at  this  time  and  at  times  carried  off  as  many  as  5,000 
victims  a  day  in  the  city  of  Rome.  Claudius  had  some  re- 
spect for  his  own  character  and  possessed  military  genius. 
He  destroyed  an  army  of  300,000  Goths  who  had  advanced 
into  Macedonia,  and  also  a  fleet  of  2,000  sail,  but  was  fatally 
stricken  with  the  plague  and  abdicated  in  favor  of  Aurelian. 
Already  famous  for  his  victory  over  the  Franks,  Aurelian 
reaped  the  fruits  of  the  victories  of  Claudius,  and  by  driving 
out  the  Vandals,  Germans,  and  other  barbarians  who  had 
penetrated  into  Italy,  became  the  restorer  of  the  empire.  The 
walls  he  built  to  protect  Rome  still  remain  in  part.    He  de- 


THE   ROMAN    EMPIRE  115 

feated  Zenobia  in  two  battles  and  destroyed  Palmyra,  re- 
covered Gaul,  Spain  and  Britain  from  the  usurper  Tetricus, 
and,  following  the  policy  of  Augustus,  made  the  Danube  the 
northern  frontier.  His  successors,  Tacitus,  Probus  and 
Carus,  followed  the  course  of  Aurelian  in  this  respect.  Carus 
being  killed,  as  it  was  said,  by  lightning,  one  of  his  generals, 
Diocletian,  took  away  the  authority  from  his  effeminate  and 
cruel  sons,  Carinus  and  Numerianus,  and  established  an  ab- 
solute imperialistic  form  of  government,  which  extended  to 
the  dissolution  of  the  empire. 

Though  a  military  monarch,  Diocletian  created  what  was 
called  a  "Tetrarchy,"  or  rule  of  four.  He  made  Maximian, 
who  controlled  the  West,  including  Italy  and  Africa,  his  as- 
sociate emperor,  Diocletian,  with  his  residence  at  Nicomedia 
in  Asia  Minor,  retaining  control  of  the  East,  including 
Thrace,  Macedonia,  Asia  and  Egypt.  Then  he  appointed  an 
assistant  for  himself,  Galerius,  who  controlled  Noricum, 
Panonia  and  Moesia,  and  an  assistant  for  Maximian,  Con- 
stantius,  who  controlled  Spain,  Gaul  and  Britain. 

The  last  of  the  persecutions  of  Christians  is  said  to  have 
begun  (303  A.  D.)  under  Diocletian  and  continued  for  ten 
years,  when  Constantine  (313  A.  D.)  became  sole  ruler.  The 
recognition  of  Christianity  as  the  state  religion,  the  calling 
of  a  council  of  the  clergy  at  Nicaea  to  fix  the  points  of  faith 
(325),  and  the  establishment  of  a  new  capital  for  the  em- 
pire at  Constantinople  (328),  were  among  the  leading  events 
of  his  reign.  He  also  abolished  the  praetorian  guards,  giv- 
ing territorial  governors  only  civil  authority,  and  made  the 
army  as  well  as  the  civil  rulers  entirely  subject  to  the  central 
power. 

Constantine  had  begun  to  rule  as  successor  to  his  father, 
Constantius  Chlorus,  over  Spain,  Gaul  and  Britain  (306  A. 


116  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

D. ) .  There  were  then  six  hostile  rulers  in  the  empire.  Both 
Maximian  and  Maximin  committed  suicide;  Galerius  died  of 
a  frightful  disease;  Maxentius  was  defeated  by  Constantine 
and  drowned  in  the  Tiber,  and  Licinius,  who  also  attacked 
Constantine  near  Adrianople,  was  captured  and  subsequently 
executed. 

Though  Constantine  had  divided  his  dominions  among  his 
three  sons,  Constantius,  Constans  and  Constantine,  and  two 
nephews,  Julian  and  Gallus,  the  people  were  dissatisfied  and 
murdered  all  the  remaining  nephews.  Constantine  II  made 
war  on  his  brother  Constans,  and  was  killed  by  him  at 
Aquilea  (340  A.  D.),  Constans  being  killed  in  Spain  (350 
A.  D. )  by  Magnentius,  an  officer  of  Constans'  army.  Gallus 
was  put  to  death  by  Constantius  (354  A.  D.).  In  the  year 
360,  Constantius  and  Julian  quarreled  and  the  death  of  the 
former  left  Julian  sole  emperor.  He  endeavored  to  restore 
the  pagan  religion  and  gained  the  title  of  "the  Apostate." 
He  was  a  man  of  energy  and  repelled  the  Alemanni  who 
crossed  the  Rhine,  and  made  a  vigorous  war  on  the  Per- 
sians, but  his  successor,  Jovian,  made  a  disadvantageous 
peace  with  them  (363  A.  D.).  Valentinian  was  elected  by 
the  army  emperor  of  the  West,  and  he  made  his  brother, 
Valeus,  emperor  in  the  East.  During  the  reign  of  the  latter, 
the  Huns,  emerging  from  the  steppes  of  Asia,  attacked  the 
Goths  and  drove  them  into  the  Roman  territory.  They  were 
given  homes  south  of  the  Danube  in  Thrace  and  Moesia,  but 
being  maddened  by  the  ill-treatment  of  the  Roman  officials, 
rose  in  revolt  and  defeated  the  Roman  army  at  Adrianople 
(378  A.  D.),  where  Valeus  was  killed. 

Theodosius  succeeded  Valeus  as  emperor  of  the  East  (379 
A.  D.),  and  continued  the  policy  of  admitting  the  barbari- 
ans and  protecting  them.  When  Gothic  soldiers  were  mobbed 


THE   ROMAN    EMPIRE  117 

in  the  city  of  Thessalonica,  he  caused  7,000  of  the  people  to 
be  gathered  in  the  circus,  where  they  were  slaughtered  in  a 
body  by  the  soldiers  (390  A.  D.).  He  made  one  notable 
military  expedition  to  the  West,  after  its  ruler  Valentinian 
II,  who  succeeded  his  brother  Gratian,  had  been  basely  mur- 
dered by  Arbogastes,  general  of  his  armies  (392  A.  D.). 
Theodosius  forced  a  passage  through  the  Alps,  and  defeated 
the  army  of  Eugenius  and  Arbogastes  at  Aquileia,  when  the 
latter  committed  suicide.  At  the  death  of  Theodosius,  his 
son,  Arcadius,  became  emperor  of  the  East,  and  another  son, 
Honorius,  of  the  West. 

Stilicho,  a  barbarian  general  in  the  Roman  service,  was 
the  guardian  of  the  young  Honorius,  emperor  of  the  West, 
and  as  long  as  Stilicho  lived,  Italy  was  safe  from  invasion. 
Stilicho  defeated  the  Goths  under  Alaric  in  the  battle  of 
Polentia  (403  A.  D.),  and  the  Vandals,  Burgundians,  Suevi 
and  Alani,  under  the  leadership  of  Radagaisus  in  406  A.  D. 
But  Honorius,  it  is  said,  became  jealous  of  him,  and  he  was 
put  to  death  (408  A.  D.). 

Alaric  invaded  the  Italian  peninsula  and  Rome  was  made 
to  pay  an  enormous  ransom.  When  Honorius  refused  to 
grant  him  lands,  Alaric  gave  the  city  up  to  his  soldiers,  who 
sacked  it  (410  A.  D.).  Valentinian  being  but  six  years  old 
when  proclaimed  emperor,  the  government  was  controlled 
by  his  mother,  Placidia,  sister  of  Honorius  and  daughter  of 
Theodosius.  She  had  two  able  generals,  Aetius  and  Boni- 
face, the  latter  serving  in  Africa,  and  the  former  instru- 
mental in  defeating  Attila,  at  Chalons  (451  A.  D.),  where 
it  is  said  the  battlefield  was  strewn  with  180,000  corpses. 

Aetius,  like  Stilicho,  was  also  murdered  by  his  jealous 
prince,  Valentinian  III,  who  was  himself  assassinated  in  his 
palace.  Shortly  afterwards  Genseric,  chief  of  the  Vandals, 
under  the  pretense  of  avenging  the  emperor,  took  possession 


118  WAR  OR   A    UNITED   WORIyD 

of  Rome  and  for  fourteen  days  gave  the  city  up  to  pillage 
(455  A.  D.).  Rome  was  now  tottering,  for  seventeen  years 
(455-472)  Ricimer,  a  Goth,  commanding  the  foreign  troops, 
exercised  absolute  authority,  elevating  and  deposing  em- 
perors at  will.  Eight  rulers  perished  or  were  deposed  in 
twenty  years.  Odoacer,  King  of  the  Heruli,  had  little  diffi- 
culty in  overthrowing  the  youthful  Augustulus,  and  the  bar- 
barians took  full  possession  of  Italy  (476  A.  D.). 


PRESIDENT  POINCARE 

OF    FRANCE 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  FRANCO-IBERIAN  PENINSULA.  . 

As  we  have  seen,  France,  Spain  and  Portugal,  which  are 
included  in  the  Franco-Iberian  peninsula,  were  under  the 
control  of  Rome  until  the  fall  of  the  Western  Empire  in 
476.  At  that  time  Odoacer  was  entrusted  by  Zeno,  em- 
peror at  Constantinople,  in  whom  the  full  control  of  the 
whole  Roman  Empire  had  been  vested  by  the  senate,  with 
the  government  of  the  West.  The  Roman  senate  had  voted 
that  one  emperor  was  enough,  and  so  Odoacer,  chief  of  a 
Teutonic  tribe,  the  Heruli,  who  had  previously  captured 
and  sacked  the  city,  was  named  as  Patrician  at  Rome.  The 
old  form  of  government,  with  senate,  consuls,  etc.,  was  con- 
tinued, but  from  this  time  on,  as  the  historian  Freeman  ex- 
presses it,  "old  Rome  itself  passed  into  the  power  of  the 
barbarians." 

The  Iberians  were  probably  an  indigenous  people  whom 
the  Celts  in  their  migrations  found  in  possession  of  this 
western  territory.  They  were  related  to  the  Finns  of  the 
north.  In  France,  under  the  name  of  Aquitani,  they  were 
crowded  to  the  south  of  the  Garonne,  and,  as  Basques  in 
Spain,  they  were  forced  to  the  northwest,  the  mixture  of 
races  being  called  Celtiberians. 

Alaric,  king  of  the  West-Goths,  as  we  have  seen,  though 
kept  in  check  for  a  considerable  time  by  the  Roman  general, 


120  WAR  OR   A   UNITED   WORU) 

Stilicho,  finally  in  410,  captured  and  sacked  the  city  of  Rome 
and,  although  he  died  before  actually  in  control  of  a  govern- 
ment in  Spain,  he  is  rated  as  its  first  sovereign  (406).  His 
successor,  Athauf,  went  nominally  as  a  Roman  official  to  re- 
store the  Spanish  province  to  the  empire,  but  really  made  it 
an  independent  government  modeled  after  that  of  Rome 
(411). 

General  history  makes  Clovis,  chief  of  the  Salian  Franks 
of  Tournai,  the  first  king  of  France  in  481  A.  D.  By  his 
victory  at  Soissons  in  485  he  defeated  the  last  remnant  of 
the  Roman  army  and  extended  his  dominions  south  as  far 
as  the  Loire.  But  kings  were  not  then  what  they  subse- 
quently became,  nor  was  France  the  France  of  Francis  I, 
or  even  of  Charlemagne. 

Clovis  drove  the  Alemanni,  as  the  Germans  are  still  called 
in  the  French  language,  out  of  France,  and  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  what  afterwards  became  the  monarchy.  Next  he 
conquered  the  Burgundians  and  reduced  them  to  vassalage. 
Then  he  beat  the  Visigoths  and  drove  them  into  Spain  and 
conquered  the  Acquitainians.  He  became  a  Christian  and 
united  the  Frankish  peoples  by  assassinating  all  the  "kings" 
of  these  tribes.  For  these  deeds  of  blood,  so  far  from  being 
blamed,  he  was  regarded  as  a  blessed  instrument  in  the  hands 
of  Providence  who  merited  the  reward  of  empire  in  that  he 
was  a  converted  pagan  and  good  Christian. 

Long  and  bloody  wars  marked  the  reigns  of  his  immediate 
successors,  who  were  his  four  sons,  each  of  whom  became  a 
separate  and  independent  king.  They  annihilated  the  Bur- 
gundian  kingdom  and  divided  it  among  themselves.  They 
did  the  same  with  Provence.  They  subjugated  to  their  power 
the  whole  of  Gaul  except  a  corner  in  the  southeast  still  held 
by  the  Visigoths.  They  invaded  Italy  and  were  driven  back 
by  the  Lombards.     They  invaded  Spain  and  met  the  same 


FRANCO-IBERIAN    PENINSULA  121 

fate.  They  were  more  successful  in  Germany,  one  of  these 
kings,  Theoderic,  conquering  the  Thuringians  and  appro- 
priating the  territory  which  now  comprises  parts  of  Prussia, 
Saxony  and  the  Saxon  duchies. 

To  these  wars  of  conquest  succeeded  the  wars  between 
the  brother  kings,  more  bloody  than  those  for  foreign  do- 
minion. On  the  death  of  Clotaire,  the  last  surviving  son  of 
Clovis,  the  kingdom  was  again  divided  between  four  sons, 
with  their  respective  capitals  at  Paris,  Orleans,  Rheims  and 
Soissons.  There  were  naturally  mutual  jealousies,  disputes 
and  wars  over  boundaries,  which  resulted  in  the  terrible  civil 
wars  lasting  from  561  to  613,  and  which  were  fanned  into 
fury  by  the  rivalries  and  the  hatreds  of  Fredegunde  and 
Brunehilda,  two  women,  far  famed  in  early  French  history, 
whose  domestic  treachery  and  secret  assassinations  added  to 
the  horrors  of  war. 

The  most  powerful  of  the  Merovingians  was  Dagobert, 
who  was  sole  king  from  628  to  638.  Under  him  the  Basques 
or  Vascones,  south  of  the  Garonne,  were  conquered,  the 
dukes  of  the  Bretons  submitted,  the  greater  part  of  the  Fris- 
ians and  Saxons  paid  tribute  and  the  Thuringians,  Alemanni 
and  Bavarians  received  his  commands  as  king.  The  Prank- 
ish empire  extended  from  the  Weser  to  the  Pyrenees  and 
from  the  Western  Ocean  to  the  Bohemian  frontiers. 

When  Dagobert  died  his  two  sons,  Sigobert  II  and  Clovis 
II,  were  still  children,  and  the  monarchial  authority  declined 
rapidly,  while  the  power  of  the  mayors  of  the  palace  in- 
creased, the  more  so  as  children  were  placed  upon  the  throne 
in  many  cases. 

In  680  an  Austrasian  army,  under  Duke  Martin,  set  out 
to  attack  Ebroin,  Mayor  of  Theoderic  III,  then  King  of 
Neustria  and  Burgundy.  This  army  was  defeated  and 
Martin,  drawn  into  a  conference  by  Ebroin,  was  killed.    But 


122  WAR  OR   A   UNITED   WORLD 

Ebroin,  the  last  defender  of  Merovingian  royalty,  was  as- 
sassinated (687)  by  Duke  Pippin  of  Austrasia,  which  act 
practically  ended  the  Merovingian  dynasty. 

The  "Mayor  of  the  Palace,"  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  chief 
executive  officer  of  the  king  and  commanded  the  main  body 
of  the  army,  so  that  the  mayor  after  a  time  came  to  possess 
more  power  than  the  king  himself. 

During  the  confusion  and  wars  which  accompanied  the 
breakup  of  the  decaying  Merovingian  dynasty,  one  of  these 
mayors,  Pippin  of  Heristal,  an  able  prince  and  ruler,  usurped 
the  royal  authority,  in  all  but  the  name,  and  founded  what 
became  known  as  the  Carlovingian  dynasty.  An  illegitimate 
son  of  Pippin,  Charles  Martel,  succeeded  him,  and  opened  up 
a  remarkable  period. 

Pippin's  oldest  son  had  died  before  him,  and  the  second 
son  was  assassinated.  Accordingly,  Pippin  had  made  an 
infant  grandson  mayor  of  Neustria  and  Austrasia,  with  the 
child's  grandmother,  Plectrudis,  as  guardian.  Refusing  to 
be  governed  by  a  woman  and  child,  the  Neustrians  chose  a 
mayor  of  their  own,  one  Raginf  red,  who  proceeded  to  invade 
Austrasia  from  the  west,  while  the  Saxons  and  Frisians  at- 
tacked it  from  the  east.  The  Austrasians  needed  an  able 
commander,  and  so  they  took  this  illegitimate  son  of  Pippin, 
Charles  Martel,  out  of  prison  where  Plectrudis  had  placed 
him,  and  made  him  king. 

He  was  thirty  years  old  and  a  rough  barbarian  soldier, 
knowing  little  of  the  management  of  armies.  At  first  un- 
successful, he  withdrew  his  forces  into  the  interior  of  the 
Ardennes  forest,  and,  watching  his  opportunity,  he  suddenly 
emerged,  surprised  and  routed  the  Neustrian  army.  He  de- 
feated them  at  Cambroi  the  next  year  (717),  and,  the  Aqui- 
tanians  coming  to  their  assistance,  he  routed  their  combined 
forces  two  years  later  at  Soissons  and  reduced  them  to  sub- 


FRANCO-IBERIAN    PENINSULA  123 

jection  as  he  subsequently  did  to  the  Alemanni,  the  Bavarians 
and  Thuringians.  But  his  greatest  victory  was  yet  to  follow. 
The  Arabs,  who  had  conquered  Spain,  crossed  the  Pyrenees 
and  poured  out  over  the  southern  plains  of  France.  Charles 
met  and  defeated  them  in  732  at  Tours,  putting  300,000 
Saracens  to  the  sword,  and  righting  one  of  the  decisive  bat- 
tles of  the  world,  in  that  it  saved  Christian  Europe  from 
overthrow  by  the  religion  of  the  prophet.  Some  of  Martel's 
fiercest  wars  and  conquests  were  in  Germany,  whither  he 
sent  his  Christian  missionaries  to  prepare  the  way  for  his 
military  expeditions.  He  developed  into  a  wise  and  far- 
seeing  prince,  though  much  of  his  life  as  a  king  was  passed 
in  war.  From  733  to  739  he  was  in  arms  against  the  Bur- 
gundians,  who  had  refused  to  submit  to  the  weak  successors 
of  Dagobert.  Charles  conquered  them,  as  well  as  the  valley 
of  the  Rhone,  and  subjected  Septimania,  where  the  remnant 
of  the  Arab  army  had  fled  from  Tours.  That  same  year, 
739,  he  completed  the  subjugation  of  Provence.  Although 
he  divided  the  lands  which  he  took  from  the  church  to  re- 
ward his  soldiers,  he  was  engaged  in  preparing  to  cross  the 
Alps  to  defend  the  Pope,  who  had  solicited  his  aid  as  against 
the  Lombards,  when  he  died. 

Charles  supported  and  protected  the  English  monk,  Boni- 
face, the  apostle  to  the  Germans,  and  by  means  of  Boniface's 
labors  Germany  was  brought  into  union  with  Rome,  the  re- 
sult of  which  was  the  founding  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire, 
which  endured  up  to  the  time  of  Luther. 

One  of  the  elder  sons  of  Charles  Martel,  Pippins  the  Short, 
succeeded  in  752.  He  was  a  son  and  protector  of  the  church 
and  knew  how  to  bargain  with  it  for  his  own  advantage. 
Upon  the  promise  of  help  from  Pippin  against  the  Lombards, 
Pope  Zacharias  approved  of  his  usurpation  of  the  royal 
name  and  authority  and  Pippin  was  anointed  king  by  Boni- 


124  WAR  OR   A   UNITED   WORLD 

face  at  Soissons  in  752,  his  coronation  being  consecrated  by 
Pope  Suphen  II  in  St.  Denis  in  754.  In  fulfillment  of  his 
agreement  with  Pope  Zacharias  while  he  lived,  Pippin  led  his 
armies  over  the  Alps  and  warred  with  the  Lombards,  whom 
he  conquered  and  forced  to  cede  to  him  the  exarcharte  of 
Ravenna  and  the  Pentapolis,  which  territory  he  gave  to  the 
Pope.  This  famous  donation  created  the  temporal  power  of 
the  Pope  which  lasted  more  than  a  thousand  years,  when  it 
disappeared  in  the  founding  of  the  Kingdom  of  Italy  in 
1870.  Pippin  carried  on  wars  against  the  Saxons,  later  con- 
tinued for  so  long  and  with  such  merciless  severity  by  his 
successor. 

Next  came  Charlemagne,  the  greatest  figure  in  French  his- 
tory antecedent  to  Napoleon.  It  may  be  mentioned  at  the 
outset  that  the  Carolingian  dynasty,  like  all  other  dynasties 
of  the  early  feudalism,  was  neither  hereditary  nor  elective, 
but  was  determined  by  the  will  of  the  king,  confirmed  by  the 
great  feudatories. 

The  first  wars  of  Charlemagne  were  in  Italy,  and  he  em- 
barked for  them  on  the  Pope's  appeal  for  help  against  Didier, 
the  king  of  the  Lombards.  He  crossed  the  Alps,  took  Ve- 
rona and  Pavia  after  long  sieges,  assumed  the  iron  crown  of 
the  Lombard  kings,  and  made  a  triumphal  entry  into  Rome 
in  774.  Upon  a  revolt  of  the  Lombards  two  years  later, 
Charlemagne  returned  and  conquered  the  whole  of  Italy. 
This  was  in  Italy  and  was  but  an  episode.  His  greatest  war 
and  one  which  continued  with  varying  fortunes  for  thirty 
years  (from  772  to  804)  was  with  the  Saxons  of  northern 
Germany,  bordering  on  the  North  Sea  and  the  Baltic. 

The  vast  empire  of  Charlemagne  was  surrounded  by  hos- 
tile and  non-Christian  nations,  the  Danes  in  Scandinavia,  the 
Slavs  of  the  Baltic,  the  Avars  of  Hungary,  and  the  Arabs  in 
Spain.     The  whole  reign  of  this  great  prince  was  spent  in 


FRANCO-IBERIAN    PENINSULA  125 

incessant  wars.  The  most  celebrated  of  these  in  song  and 
story,  perhaps,  are  his  wars  in  Spain  (from  778  to  812).  A 
Saracen  emir  or  prince,  an  enemy  of  the  caliph  of  Cordova, 
offered  to  put  Charlemagne  in  possession  of  the  cities  which 
the  caliph  held  south  of  the  Pyrenees.  Accordingly,  Charle- 
magne led  his  army  through  Gascony,  compelling  Duke  Lupus 
to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  and  cross  the  Pyrenees.  On  his 
return,  after  reducing  Pampeluna  and  Saragossa,  his  army 
was  ambushed  by  the  Basques  in  the  valley  of  Roncesvallis 
and  among  those  killed  was  the  Count  Rowland,  commander 
of  the  Marchess  of  Brittany.  Six  other  successful  expedi- 
tions beyond  the  Pyrenees  were  made  by  the  Franks,  con- 
ducted chiefly  by  the  sons  of  Charlemagne,  and  the  empire 
was  extended  nearly  to  the  Ebro.  Not  under  the  first  Na- 
poleon was  the  French  empire  so  widely  extended  in  every 
direction,  and  the  Germans,  just  creeping  into  civilization, 
were  taught  history,  grammar,  writing  and  arithmetic  by  the 
English  Alcuin,  Charlemagne's  chancellor.  In  the  year  800, 
the  western  Roman  empire  was  revived  and  Charlemagne 
crowned  as  emperor  by  the  Pope,  but  with  this  difference :  it 
was  no  longer  the  "Roman  Empire,"  but  the  "Holy  Roman 
Empire,"  to  signify  that  the  ultimate  dominion  was  vested 
in  the  church.  This  was  an  event  of  utmost  importance,  and 
shaped  the  history  of  the  middle  ages. 

Imperialism  and  centralization,  represented  by  Charle- 
magne, were  antagonistic  to  feudalism  and  the  interests  of 
the  great  feudatories,  and,  finally,  the  latter  prevailed.  The 
vast  empire,  held  in  unity  by  the  wisdom  and  power  of  the 
great  Charlemagne,  went  to  pieces  at  his  death. 

Twenty-nine  years  after  his  death,  in  814,  the  empire  had 
been  divided  into  three  kingdoms;  forty  years  later,  one  of 
these  kingdoms  had  split  into  seven,  and  a  century  after 
Charlemagne's  death,  France  was  a  batch  of  practically  in- 


12  G  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORLD 

dependent  states,  just  as  Germany  was  at  the  peace  of  West- 
phalia in  1648,  and  as  Germany  continued  to  be  for  two  cen- 
turies and  a  half  after  that  date. 

Charlemagne  in  his  lifetime  made  his  three  sons  sover- 
eigns— Pippin,  king  of  the  Italians ;  Charles,  of  the  Germans, 
and  Louis  the  Pious,  of  the  Aquitanians.  The  former  two 
dying  before  their  father,  this  division  was  annulled,  and 
Charlemagne  made  Bernard,  son  of  Pippin,  King  of  Italy, 
while  Louis  the  Pious,  as  emperor,  retained  the  rest  of  the 
dominion.  Rebellion  against  him  by  his  three  sons  and  do- 
mestic wars  followed,  which  were  continued  after  the  death 
of  Louis  until  finally  settled  by  the  battle  of  Fontanatum 
(841)  and  a  partition  of  the  empire  between  the  three  sons 
in  the  famous  treaty  of  Verdun,  843.  Some  historians  have 
gone  so  far  as  to  say  that  all  subsequent  treaties  on  the  con- 
tinent have  been  mere  modifications  of  this  early  compact. 
This  treaty  first  created  the  distinction  between  France  and 
Germany,  with  the  middle  Kingdom  of  Lorraine  between 
them,  the  latter  becoming  picking  grounds  for  both,  and  of 
which  only  the  name  of  the  province  now  remains.  Wars, 
and  nothing  but  wars,  followed  this  division  between  the 
kings  and  rebellious  and  rival  feudatories.  Charles  the  Bald, 
King  of  France  from  843  to  877,  spent  his  life,  sword  in 
hand,  fighting  the  Northmen,  who,  under  Rollo.  took  posses- 
sion of  Northern  France  and  later  of  England. 

These  much-dreaded  pirates,  in  their  two-sailed  vessels, 
each  fleet  under  the  command  of  a  viking,  despite  the  storms 
which  often  shattered  their  craft,  laughed  at  the  winds  and 
waves,  and  it  was  said  that  in  the  clash  of  battle,  at  the  sight 
of  blood,  they  were  seized  with  a  "berserker"  (bare-shirted) 
madness  which  doubled  their  strength  and  rendered  them  im- 
mune to  blows,  as  though  led  on  by  Thor,  the  god  of  battles. 

Under  the  famous  pirates,  Hasting  and  Rollo,  these  Norse- 


FRANCO-IBERIAN    PENINSULA  127 

men  besieged  Paris  for  a  year  (885  to  886),  and  after  the 
arrival  of  Charles  the  Fat,  with  his  army  of  reinforcements, 
who  ruled  Charlemagne's  whole  domains,  the  Parisians  were 
infused  with  the  purpose  of  destroying  these  robbers.  But 
the  cowardly  emperor  had  made  a  disgraceful  treaty  per- 
mitting the  Norse  to  go  and  ravage  the  province  of  Bur- 
gundy. The  next  year  Charles  was  deposed,  and  the  ruins 
of  his  empire  served  to  form  seven  kingdoms :  France,  Cis- 
jurane  Burgundy,  Trans jurane  Burgundy,  Navarre,  Lor- 
raine, Italy  and  Germany. 

The  Capetian  dynasty,  beginning  with  Hugh  Capet,  in 
987,  was  marked  by  the  weakening  of  the  royal  power  and 
the  increase  of  power  in  the  great  feudatories,  a  process 
which  served  as  the  cause  of  the  development  of  many  dif- 
ferent wars  at  different  places,  some,  indeed,  at  the  same 
time,  to  gratify  the  greed,  ambition  or  other  passion  of  the 
rival  feudal  barons.  These  barons  built  their  castles  in 
strong  places  and  the  peasants  flocked  to  their  precincts  for 
protection ;  this  they  were  given  in  consideration  of  labor  in 
time  of  peace  and  service  in  the  army  in  time  of  war. 

From  this  period  of  the  feudal  regime,  during  the  last  half 
of  the  tenth  century,  the  first  general  war  occurred  between 
France  and  Germany. 

Louis  III  of  Germany  invaded  France  in  858,  but  was 
compelled  to  retire ;  Lorraine  was  annexed  to  France  in  868 ; 
Charles  the  Fat,  who  usurped  the  throne  of  France  in  884, 
was  deposed  in  887.  After  Charles,  Count  Eudes,  who  had 
defended  Paris  against  the  Northmen,  was  selected  king. 
Charles  the  Simple  having  been  elected  king  by  the  partisans 
of  the  Carlovingian  dynasty,  Eudes  frightened  him  out  of 
Rheims,  and  he  fled  to  Arnulf,  Emperor  of  Germany,  for 
refuge,  which  would  have  occasioned  a  war  had  the  counts 
and  bishops  of  Lotharingia  supported  the  emperor,  and  had 


128  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORLD 

not  Eudes  died  in  898,  when  Charles  the  Simple  succeeded 
him  without  opposition.  Then  followed  the  establishment 
of  the  Norse  in  Normandy,  ceded  to  them  by  Charles,  and 
the  death  of  the  latter  in  prison  in  spite  of  Germany's  efforts 
to  save  him  in  929. 

This  was  succeeded  by  the  election  of  his  son,  Louis  IV 
(d'outre-Mer),  recalled  from  England  at  the  age  of  fifteen, 
his  imprisonment  for  a  year,  the  purchase  of  his  release  by 
the  cession  of  his  last  city,  Laon,  to  Hugh,  Duke  of  France, 
for  his  support,  and  his  accidental  death  while  hunting  in 
954.  The  reigns  of  Lothair  and  his  son,  Louis  V,  which 
ended  in  987  by  his  accidental  fall  from  a  horse,  are  notable, 
aside  from  the  wars  of  the  vassals  for  territory,  on  account 
of  the  extreme  poverty  to  which  these  last  descendants  of 
Charlemagne  were  reduced. 

The  financial  and  political  weakness  of  the  last  of  the  Car- 
lovingians  was  the  chief  reason  for  which  Hugh  Capet,  hav- 
ing at  his  disposal  the  revenues  of  three  of  the  richest  abbeys 
of  France,  decided  to  assume  the  title  of  king.  He  and  his 
three  lineal  successors  were  closely  allied  with  the  church, 
and  the  military  events  of  the  time  include  the  persecution  of 
the  Jews  (1010),  the  conquest  of  Burgundy  (1016),  the  first 
burning  of  heretics  (1022),  the  invasion  of  Brittany  by 
Robert  the  Devil  (1033),  the  battle  of  Val  des  Dunes,  near 
Caen,  fought  by  William  the  Bastard  against  his  vassals 
(1046),  the  defeat  and  death  of  Eudes  II,  Count  of  Blois, 
in  the  Barrois  (1037),  the  bloody  victory  of  the  Normans 
over  the  French  of  the  Ilse-de-France  (1054),  the  frightful 
famine  of  the  eleventh  century,  the  conquest  of  Portugal  by 
Henry  of  Burgundy  (1095),  the  first  Crusade  undertaken 
almost  alone  by  the  French  (1096),  the  quarrel  of  the  three 
Popes  and  the  Concordat  of  Worms  (1122),  and  the  contest 
for  the  divine  right  of  title  between  Edward  III  of  England 


FRANCO-IBERIAN    PENINSULA  129 

and  Philip  VI  of  Valois,  inaugurating  the  "Hundred  Years' 
War"  between  France  and  England,  lasting  from  1338  to 
1453. 

The  great  problem  of  the  middle  ages  was  whether  there 
should  be  one  universal  empire  over  all  the  nations  of  Eu- 
rope, and,  if  so,  whether  the  Pope  or  the  Emperor  should 
head  it.  In  this  was  involved  the  secondary  problem  whether 
monarchy  or  feudalism  should  prevail.  We  see  here  the 
foundation  head  of  the  long  and  bitter  wars  and  the  intricate 
complications  which  devastated  Europe  and  of  which  France 
had  her  full  share. 

After  the  ruin  of  the  house  of  Burgundy  by  the  French 
monarchy,  the  French  king,  in  his  greediness,  claimed  every- 
thing. In  despair,  Mary,  the  heiress  of  Burgundy,  threw 
herself  into  the  arms  of  Maximilian  of  Austria,  and  the  Low 
Countries  fell  under  the  dominion  of  the  Hapsburgs.  Here 
was  another  fruitful  source  of  war,  not  only  in  France,  but 
also  in  Spain. 

With  the  fall  of  Charles  the  Bold  of  Burgundy,  and  the 
success  of  the  policies  and  intrigues  of  the  "Universal 
Spider,"  Louis  XI,  the  French  monarchy  proper  was  con- 
stituted and  the  force  of  feudalism  was  exhausted.  From 
this  time  forward,  wars  in  France  began  to  take  national 
aims  and  interest  into  consideration,  and  wars  for  mere  pri- 
vate and  personal  interests  abated  in  the  same  proportion. 

The  wars  of  the  French  in  Italy  began  in  the  last  decade 
of  the  fifteenth  century,  when  Ferdinand  II  of  Aragon 
wrested  the  kingdom  of  Naples  from  France,  and  continued 
until  the  defeat  of  Francis  I  at  Pavia  and  the  treaty  of  Mad- 
rid in  1526.  It  was  with  Francis  I  that  the  king  became  an 
absolute  monarch  in  France  and  so  continued  until  the 
French  Revolution  of  1789. 

Contemporary  with  these  events  was  the  beginning  of  the 


130  WAR  OR   A   UNITED   WORIyD 

Reformation  in  Germany,  which  was  the  source  of  the 
Thirty  Years'  War  inaugurated  by  the  House  of  Austria,  a 
struggle  both  political  and  religious,  beginning  in  Bohemia 
in  1618,  and  involving  in  its  purpose  the  subjugation  of  Eu- 
rope by  the  ruin  of  German  Protestantism,  and  of  the  relig- 
ious wars  in  the  Low  Countries,  in  all  of  which  France  took 
part.  But  what  concerned  France  more  nearly  were  the  re- 
ligious wars  at  home,  which  raged  until  the  edict  of  Nantes 
and  broke  out  with  new  fury  after  that  edict  was  revoked. 
The  best  remembered  event  of  these  wars  is  the  "Massacre 
of  St.  Bartholomew."  These  wars  were  most  bloody  and 
vindictive,  and  treachery  and  private  assassinations  played 
important  parts. 

The  divine  right  of  kings  was  a  doctrine  which  Bossuet 
founded  upon  doctrine  drawn  from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  a 
doctrine  which  all  the  world  believed  and  Louis  XIV  em- 
bodied in  his  famous  declaration,  "I  am  the  State." 

The  long  and  costly  wars  of  Louis  XIV,  upheld  and  sup- 
ported by  this  doctrine  and  faith,  imposed  a  debt  on  France 
which  could  not  be  met  by  the  ordinary  means  of  raising 
revenues.  The  States-General  were  called  to  provide  the 
necessary  means,  and  in  1789  the  French  Assembly  adopted 
the  declaration  of  the  "Rights  of  Man,"  and  on  June  20, 
1790,  abolished  hereditary  nobility  and  titles  of  honor.  The 
changes  and  horrors  of  the  revolution,  which  began  with  the 
storming  of  the  Bastile,  July  14,  1789,  followed  rapidly. 
Louis  XVI  had  to  pay  the  penalty  of  the  misgovernment  of 
the  many  sovereigns  who  had  reigned  before  him,  more  espe- 
cially of  his  grandfather,  Louis  XV,  and  his  predecessor, 
Louis  XIV,  who  was  styled  Dieu  Donne  (God-given),  but 
from  the  ills  he  inflicted  upon  the  French  people  in  his  ef- 
forts to  conquer  all  Europe,  seems  to  have  been  quite  the  re- 


FRANCO-IBERIAN    PENINSULA  131 

verse.  With  the  Reign  of  Terror,  one  party  after  another 
arose  to  power  and  put  its  enemies  to  death.  Yet  amidst 
these  commotions  it  prepared  a  uniform  code  for  all  France, 
decreed  a  system  of  national  instruction,  and  by  the  sale  of 
the  "national  property"  and  consolidation  of  the  public  debt, 
opened  up  unproductive  domains  and  established  public  con- 
fidence in  the  credit  of  the  state.  The  king  of  Prussia  and 
the  Emperor  Leopold,  by  the  famous  declaration  of  Pilnitz, 
signed  August  27,  1791,  had  expressed  their  intention  of  re- 
establishing Louis  XVI  in  his  rights,  and  thus,  through  a 
coalition  of  kings  against  France,  began  a  frightful  war  of 
twenty-three  years'  duration. 

Bloody  battles  ensued,  including  that  of  Menin,  Belgium, 
June  20,  1792,  in  which  the  Austrians  were  defeated;  the 
battle  of  Valmy,  France,  September  20,  in  which  Keller- 
man,  with  96,000  undisciplined  troops,  repulsed  160,000 
Germans;  Custine's  capture  of  Speyer,  Worms  and  Mainz 
(all  recaptured  by  the  allies  in  August,  '93) ;  Montes- 
quieu's conquest  of  Savoy,  and  Auselme's  capture  of  Nice; 
and  Dumouriez's  victory  at  Jemmappes,  Belgium,  Novem- 
ber 6,  over  the  Austrians. 

Meanwhile,  the  massacre  of  the  Swiss  guards  and  the 
storming  of  the  Tuileries,  with  the  imprisonment  of  the 
royal  family,  occurred  in  Paris,  August  10 ;  the  massacre  in 
the  Abbaye  prison,  September  3;  and  of  the  Royalist  pris- 
oners, September  5. 

Later  that  year  the  French  Republic  was  established; 
Savoy,  Nice,  and  Belgium,  annexed  to  France ;  Louis  XVI, 
beheaded;  and  war  declared  by  France  against  England, 
Spain,  and  Holland  (Feb.  1,  1793). 

With  Robespierre  practically  dictator,  in  March,  '93,  the 
"Reign  of  Terror"  was  soon  under  way.     The  assassination 


132  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORLD 

of  Marat  by  Charlotte  Corday  followed,  and  the  execution 
of  the  Queen,  of  the  Duke  of  Orleans,  and  of  Madame  Ro- 
land as  well.  The  execution  of  Robespierre,  St.  Just,  and 
seventy  of  their  colleagues  in  July  following,  terminated  the 
"Terror." 

Battles  occurred  meanwhile  at  Lincelles,  Quesnay,  Dun- 
kirk, and  Watignies,  France,  favorable  to  the  enemies  of 
France.  Houchard  gained  a  victory  over  the  English 
(Sept.  8)  at  Hondschoote,  and  defeated  the  Dutch  five  days 
later ;  but  his  army  was  seized  with  a  panic  and  fled  in  dis- 
order to  Lille,  which  event  led  to  the  execution  of  both 
Houchard  and  Custine.  Kleber  practically  settled  the  re- 
bellion in  La  Vendee  by  routing  the  peasant  army  at  Chollet 
(Oct.  17).  The  campaigns  of  '94  and  '95  passed,  and  be- 
fore the  end  of  the  last,  Barras,  appointed  by  the  convention, 
selected  a  young  lieutenant,  Napoleon  Bonaparte,  who  had 
distinguished  himself  at  Toulon,  to  defend  the  Tuileries 
against  an  attack  of  the  Royalists. 

This  marked  the  beginning  of  the  greatest  military  career 
known  to  the  world — a  career  unlike  that  of  Alexander, 
Caesar,  and  other  great  conquerors,  in  the  fact  that  it  was 
a  protest  against  the  rule  of  royalty  by  divine  right,  in  favor 
of  republican-democracy;  and  this,  although  the  personality 
concerned,  by  reason  of  its  ability  and  the  conditions  en- 
countered, was  almost  absolute  in  its  authority. 

In  October,  1795,  the  mission  of  the  Convention  was 
ended.  With  five  honest  directors,  only  one  of  whom  was 
competent,  and  with  an  empty  treasury,  the  Republic  of 
France  began  its  work.  It  had  no  commerce  or  industries, 
no  local  government  was  in  operation,  and  food  was  scarce. 
But  it  had  some  experienced  soldiers  and  generals.  The  army 
of  the  Rhine  was  commanded  by  Moreau ;  that  of  the  Sambre 
and  Meuse,  by  Jourdan ;  Hoche  commanded  in  the  West,  and 


N  A  POL.EON   HON  A  PA  K  T  E 


FRANCO-IBERIAN    PENINSULA  133 

Napoleon  had  just  received  command  of  the  army  of  the 
Interior,  which  was  soon  exchanged  for  that  of  the  army 
of  Italy. 

He  was  coldly  received  by  generals  Massena,  Augereau, 
and  the  others  when  he  reached  the  army  of  the  Alps;  but 
his  plans,  which  Carnot  had  authorized,  won  them  over. 
The  armies  of  Jourdan  and  Moreau  of  about  75,000  each, 
separated  by  mountains,  were  to  converge  and  meet  on  the 
road  to  Vienna,  while  Napoleon  would  advance  toward  the 
same  point  from  Italy. 

He  had  38,000  men,  when  he  turned  the  Col  de  Monte- 
notte,  with  which  to  take  the  offensive  against  the  Austrian 
general  Beaulieu,  with  60,000  Sardinian  and  Austrian  troops. 
He  pierced  their  center,  crushed  the  Sardinian  army,  made 
terms  which  gave  France  Savoy,  Nice,  and  Tenda,  and 
then,  crossing  the  Po  behind  the  Austrians  at  Piacenza,  car- 
ried the  bridge  at  Lodi,  repulsed  the  Austrians,  and  levied 
war  contributions  on  the  Dukes  of  Parma  and  Modena  and 
on  the  Pope  at  Rome.  By  February  2,  1797,  the  French, 
55,000  strong,  had  fought  twelve  pitched  battles,  besides 
some  sixty  skirmishes,  and  achieved  victories  over  200,000 
Austrians,  more  than  20,000  being  killed  and  wounded  and 
80,000  taken  prisoners. 

Passing  the  brilliant  but  in  some  respects  unfortunate 
campaigns  of  Napoleon  in  Egypt  (1798-99),  it  may  be  said 
that  as  the  military  power  of  France  grew  stronger  the  po- 
litical seemed  to  weaken.  Disorder  was  prevalent  every- 
where in  civil  life  and  the  Directory  itself  came  to  be  re- 
garded as  dishonest. 

The  government  had  need  of  a  strong  hand.  In  the 
words  of  Sieyes:  "To  save  France  a  head  and  a  sword  are 
needed" ;  and  it  was  at  this  juncture  that  Bonaparte  landed 


134  WAR   OR   A    UNITED   WORLD 

at  Frejus  from  his  Egyptian  campaigns.  Elected  First  Con- 
sul, he  found  that  the  royalty  of  Europe  did  not  desire  to 
recognize  France  as  a  Republic,  but  desired  the  restoration 
of  the  Bourbon  line  of  princes  which  the  nation  regarded  as 
having  betrayed  its  real  interests.  A  letter  to  this  effect 
came  to  Count  Talleyrand,  Napoleon's  Minister  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  from  Lord  Grenville,  English  Minister,  and  its  pub- 
lication united  Frenchmen  of  all  parties  as  supporters  of 
Napoleon.  And  if  the  kings  of  Europe  would  not  con- 
sider this  young  Corsican  and  his  government  seriously, 
what  better  course  could  he  pursue  than  to  teach  them  that 
one  of  humble  origin  might  be  quite  able  to  surpass  them  all 
in  adminstrative  ability  as  well  as  war! 

Napoleon  evinced  his  sentiment  toward  royalty  by  in- 
stalling himself  in  the  grand  palace  of  the  Tuileries  and 
crushing  a  royalist  insurrection.  He  freed  the  country  of 
robbers  and  appeased  revolutionary  disturbances.  Trade 
revived  and  signs  of  prosperity  began  to  appear.  But  the 
dignified  and  able  letters  which  he  had  written  to  the  Euro- 
pean sovereigns,  making  overtures  for  peace,  were  laughed 
at  and  rejected. 

War  was  unavoidable,  and  Napoleon  arranged  his  plans 
to  make  it  glorious  and  decisive  for  the  victors.  Giving  Mo- 
reau  command  of  the  armies  of  the  Rhine  and  Switzerland, 
and  Massena  the  army  of  Italy,  he  took  the  field  himself 
and  guided  an  army  of  40,000  men  over  the  St.  Bernard 
Pass  into  Italy,  cutting  Melas  off  from  Austria.  Melas, 
forced  to  give  battle,  made  his  first  attack  near  Marengo — 
and  won,  at  first.  His  second  attack  was  so  successful  that 
he  sent  word  of  his  victory  to  the  cabinets  of  Europe.  But 
Napoleon  was  hard  to  convince,  and  Desaix,  who  came  up 
with  6,000  fresh  troops,  was  ordered  to  charge  the  front 


FRANCO-IBERIAN    PENINSULA  135 

of  the  Austrian  column,  while  the  remainder  of  the  French 
fell  upon  the  flanks  of  the  enemy.  Desaix  was  killed,  but 
the  Austrians  were  thrown  into  confusion  which  turned  into 
a  rout,  and  Marengo  was  won  (June  14,  1800).  Then  the 
Archduke  John  was  defeated  (Dec.  8,  1800)  by  Moreau 
at  Hohenlinden,  on  the  Isar,  with  a  loss  of  20,000  men  and 
eighty-seven  pieces  of  cannon.  These,  with  many  minor 
victories,  led  to  the  Peace  of  Luneville  (Feb.,  1800). 

But,  with  this  feeling  among  the  crowned  heads  of  Eu- 
rope, there  would  have  been  no  rest  for  Bonaparte  had  he 
been  possessed  of  less  ambition.  There  followed  renewed 
hostilities  with  England;  the  loss  of  Egypt;  the  Peace  of 
Amiens  (March,  1802)  ;  his  election  as  First  Consul  for 
life;  rupture  of  the  Amiens'  compact;  then  Napoleon  King 
of  Italy  and  Emperor  of  France;  the  defeat  of  the  fleet  by 
Nelson;  the  wonderful  victories  of  Napoleon  at  Austerlitz 
(Dec.  2,  1805),  Jena  and  Anerstadt  (Oct.,  1806),  Eylau 
and  Friedland  (1807);  and  the  Peace  of  Tilsit  (July  8, 
1807). 

The  first  serious  reverse  sustained  by  Napoleon  was  in 
Spain,  when  the  French  troops  were  repulsed  at  Saragossa 
and  Valencia,  and  Dupont  was  surrounded  and  forced  to 
capitulate  (July  20,  1808).  Junot  was  defeated  later  by 
Wellesley  and  by  September  the  Allies  possessed  all  Spain. 
Yet  Napoleon  crossed  the  mountains,  broke  the  enemy's 
center,  and  entered  Madrid,  where  he  suppressed  the  In- 
quisition, closed  two-thirds  of  the  convents,  and  put  an  end 
to  feudal  rights  and  internal  custom-houses.  Saint  Cyr 
was  meanwhile  carrying  on  a  successful  campaign  on  his 
left  wing  in  Catalonia  and  Soult,  driving  30,000  English 
before  him  on  the  right  wing,  finally  compelling  them  to 
take  refuge  on  ship-board  at  Coruna. 


136  WAR  OR   A   UNITED   WORLD 

The  Archduke  Charles  of  Austria,  in  April,  1809,  with 
175,000  men  attempted  to  gain  possession  of  Bavaria,  gar- 
risoned by  scattering  French  forces,  thinking  it  a  good  time 
to  avenge  Austria's  disasters  while  Napoleon  was  occupied 
in  the  Iberian  peninsula.  Warned  two  days  in  advance, 
Napoleon,  with  the  forces  of  his  two  marshals,  Massena  and 
Davout,  cut  the  Grand  Duke's  army  in  two  at  Abensberg 
(April  20),  captured  Landshut  the  next  day,  and  on  the 
22d,  turned  their  flank  at  Eckmiihl,  driving  them  back  upon 
the  Danube  and  capturing  nearly  their  entire  force.  In 
five  days  he  had  taken  60,000  men,  100  cannon,  cut  the  Aus- 
trians  in  two,  forced  one-half  into  Bohemia  and  the  other 
on  the  Inn,  and  opened  a  clear  way  to  Vienna.  The  bloody 
battle  of  Aspern,  or  Essling  (May  21,  22,  1809),  followed 
and  the  victory  of  Wagram  (July  6)  cost  Austria,  in  the 
treaty  which  followed,  signed  at  Vienna  (Oct.  14),  a  ter- 
ritory with  3,400,000  inhabitants — mostly  in  Illyria. 

For  five  years  longer  fortune  was  in  the  ascendancy  with 
this  remarkable  man,  who  not  only  mastered  France  but 
came  near  to  mastering  all  Europe,  but  who  was  overthrown 
June  13,  1815,  at  Waterloo.  However,  he  settled  the  ques- 
tion of  the  "divine  right  of  kings"  for  all  time  to  come,  in 
the  negative. 

Since  then  France  has  been  engaged  in  war  in  North 
Africa,  took  part  in  the  Crimean  war  and  in  the  struggle 
of  Italy  against  Austria.  The  fatal  mistake  of  France  from 
a  military  point  of  view,  perhaps  the  most  fatal  in  her 
whole  history,  was  in  allowing  Prussia  to  overpower  Aus- 
tria in  1866,  to  annex  independent  German  States  and  form 
the  North  German  Confederation,  with  the  king  of  Prussia 
ar  the  head  and  Prussia  dominating.  This  was  not  foreseen 
then,  but  it  is  easily  perceived  now. 


SPAIN  137 

SPAIN. 

If  Spain  does  not  present  a  history  of  such  continuous 
and  imposing  wars  as  France  in  the  first  thousand  years  of 
her  history,  she  amply  makes  up  for  it  during  the  period  of 
her  supremacy  from  the  time  of  the  union  of  Aragon  and 
Castile  and  the  expulsion  of  the  Moors  in  1492,  down  to 
the  fall  of  the  Spanish  power. 

Spain,  as  we  have  seen,  was  a  Roman  province  before 
Caesar  conquered  the  whole  of  Gaul.  In  the  break  up  of 
the  Roman  empire  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century, 
A.  D.  409,  hordes  of  Teuton  barbarians,  Alans,  Vandals, 
and  the  Suevi  crossed  the  Pyrenees  and  poured  into  the 
peninsula.  About  414,  one  of  the  Teutonic  tribes,  the 
Visigoths,  invaded  the  country  and  established  the  mon- 
archy of  Goths  at  Catalonia,  under  King  Athaulf.  The 
Gothic  Kingdom  lasted  until  770  when  Roderic,  the  last 
of  the  kings,  was  killed  in  battle  with  the  Saracens  at 
Jerez,  allowing  the  invaders  possession  of  nearly  the  whole 
of  Spain.  The  remnants  of  the  Goths  took  refuge  in  the 
mountains  of  Asturias,  Burgas,  and  Biscay,  where  they 
maintained  their  independence  and  remained  quiet.  The 
history  of  the  revolutions  and  civil  wars  of  the  invaders 
among  themselves,  which  reached  its  climax  in  the  rivalry 
between  the  Ommiads  and  the  Abbassides,  need  not  be  en- 
tered into  in  detail. 

The  Gothic  Kingdom  of  Asturias  was  founded  by  Pelayo 
in  the  eighth  century,  with  the  help  of  the  remnant  driven  to 
the  mountains,  and  began  under  his  successors  to  extend 
itself  southward  by  slow  degrees,  keeping  in  the  meantime 
all  acquisitions,  and  to  reconquer  territory  from  the  Arabs. 
In  the  ninth  century  the  communes  of  Leon  and  Navarre 
came  into  existence  as  states.     Leon  was  long  vexed  with 


138  WAR  OR  A   UNITED   WORLD 

civil  wars  between  the  scions  of  the  royal  line,  and  both 
would  have  fallen,  or  rather  never  have  arisen,  but  for  the 
wars  among  the  invaders  themselves.  Castile  branched  out 
from  Leon  and  became  an  independent  state,  and  was  erected 
into  a  kingdom  in  1033.  In  their  progress  Southward  the 
Goths,  whom  we  may  now  call  the  Spaniards,  conquered  the 
territory  of  Aragon  from  their  enemies,  the  Moors — now 
so-called;  and,  by  the  incorporation  in  it  of  Catalonia,  the 
kingdom  of  Aragon  was  founded  in  1035.  The  kingdom 
of  Portugal  was  founded  last — the  Count  of  Lorraine  be- 
coming king — and  is  one  of  the  original  states  which  still 
remains. 

The  Ommiads  ruled  in  Spain  for  about  275  years.  Un- 
der Abd-er-Rahman  III,  who  became  caliph  in  929,  Cor- 
dova, his  capital,  was  the  most  splendid  city  in  Europe  ex- 
cept Constantinople.  It  was  very  far  in  advance  of  all  the 
rest  of  Europe  in  science,  art,  literature,  agriculture,  indus- 
try and  commerce.  Its  schools  excelled  beyond  comparison 
those  of  Christian  Europe,  and  Greek  philosophy  was  studied 
and  taught  there  before  it  was  known  in  Christendom.  The 
Moorish  fleets  controlled  the  Mediterranean  and  carried  on 
an  extensive  trade  along  all  its  borders. 

With  the  fall  of  the  Ommiad  dynasty  in  1031,  the  Moor- 
ish dominion  disintegrated  into  a  number  of  independent 
states — Cordova,  Seville,  Toledo,  Lisbon,  Saragossa,  Valen- 
cia, Torlosa,  Munia,  Badajoz  and  others  of  lesser  note. 
Aragon  and  Castile,  taking  advantage  of  this  division,  sub- 
dued and  incorporated  some  of  these  States  and  subjected 
others  to  tribute,  but  not  without  long  and  fierce  conflicts. 
The  Spaniards,  pushing  their  conquest  over  the  Moors, 
called  in  for  aid  the  Almoravides  from  Morocco,  who,  after 
defeating  the  Christians  and  reconquering  much  lost  ter- 
ritory, after  severe  fighting,  turned  their  arms  against  the 


SPAIN  139 

Moors  and  conquered  them.  The  power  of  Yusuf's  Al- 
moravides  or  "Al-Morabith"  (men  devoted  to  God) — ^a 
mixture  of  monks,  warriors,  and  thieves — was  broken  by 
the  Almohades,  another  set  from  Morocco,  who  in  turn 
became  the  rulers.  In  a  decisive  battle  in  the  plains  of  Las 
Navas  de  Tolosa,  1212,  the  kings  of  Castile,  Navarre,  and 
Aragon  by  their  united  strength  destroyed  the  Almohade 
power  in  Spain.  For  seventy  years  they  had  sway  over 
Almoravides  and  Arabs  from  the  East,  until  all  Europe 
became  alarmed  and  united  against  them.  All  that  re- 
mained of  it  capitulated  to  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  in  1492. 
This  ended  the  Moorish  wars  in  Spain  and  marks  the  be- 
ginning of  a  new  era.  The  great  captain,  Gonsalvo,  tri- 
umphed over  France  in  Italy.  In  1512  Ferdinand  made 
himself  master  of  Navarre,  except  of  that  part  lying  north 
of  the  Pyrenees,  and  effected  the  unification  of  Spain  under 
a  single  monarchy.  In  1516,  Charles  I,  grandson  of  Fer- 
dinand and  Isabella,  became  king  of  Spain,  and  in  1519 
became  Holy  Roman  emperor  as  Charles  V.  Descended 
from  Maximilian  of  Austria  and  Mary  of  Burgundy,  he 
was  the  first  of  the  Hapsburgs  to  ascend  the  throne  of 
Spain.  His  reign  saw  a  series  of  wars  with  the  French, 
the  Turks  and  the  Protestant  states  of  Germany.  To  him 
succeeded  Philip  II,  famed  for  his  wars,  his  cruel  persecu- 
tions in  the  Netherlands,  and  his  great  Armada  which  fought 
against  and  was  defeated  by  England  (1588). 

During  the  reign  of  Charles  V,  Spain  was  the  first  mili- 
tary power  in  Europe,  and  its  vast  American  possessions 
made  it  by  far  the  richest  in  wealth  and  the  widest  in  do- 
minions. Under  the  bigoted  Catholic  Philip  II,  Spain  be- 
gan its  career  of  decline  and  has  descended  lower  and  lower 
until  it  has  lost  all  its  foreign  possessions  and  sunk  to  the 
level  of  the  lowest  of  the  second-class  states.    But  it  is  now 


140  WAR  OR   A   UNITED   WORLD 

throwing  off  the  fatal  incumbus  which  paralyzed  it  and 
there  is  good  hope  of  the  resurrection  of  a  new  Spain.  In 
the  Seven  Years'  War,  Spain  joined  with  France.  As  a 
result  of  this  war,  Spain  ceded  Florida  to  Great  Britain  and 
Spain  acquired  Louisiana  from  France.  In  1779  Spain  be- 
came the  ally  of  France  in  the  war  against  England ;  in  1783 
she  recovered  Florida,  and  in  1819  ceded  it  to  the  United 
States. 

In  the  Napoleonic  wars  the  unconquerable  endurance 
of  the  Spanish  and  English  soldiery  first  proved  that  Na- 
poleon was  not  invincible.  Meanwhile,  Spain's  American 
colonies  had  revolted  and,  after  fierce  wars  of  sixteen  years, 
in  1826  Spain  had  lost  all  her  colonies  on  the  mainland,  Cuba 
being  the  last  to  be  surrendered ;  now  Spain  had  not  a  foot- 
hold on  the  American  continent  of  which  at  one  time  she 
possessed  the  greater  part. 

After  the  downfall  of  Napoleon,  the  bloody  tyrant,  Fer- 
dinand III,  came  to  the  throne  and  abrogated  the  liberal 
constitution  of  1812.  He  restored  the  religious  orders  to 
their  former  predominance,  abolished  the  Cortes  and  re- 
established the  Inquisition.  Besides  other  reactionary  meas- 
ures, he  put  to  death  under  arbitrary  forms  of  law  over 
7,000  Spanish  patriots. 

In  1820,  a  liberal  revolution  headed  by  Raphael  del  Riego 
restored  the  Cortes  and  other  institutions  which  had  been 
destroyed  by  Ferdinand  in  1814.  In  1823,  the  Holy  Al- 
liance took  note  of  the  revolution  and  France  was  commis- 
sioned to  suppress  it  and  restore  Absolutism  and  the  rule  of 
the  church.  A  French  army  of  100,000  men  invaded  Spain, 
and  the  Spanish  forces  were  not  able  to  resist  them  success- 
fully. The  French  entered  Madrid,  drove  out  the  liberal 
government  and  restored  Ferdinand,  who  had  been  declared 
of  unsound  mind  by  the  Cortes.    The  prime  minister,  Ber- 


SPAIN  141 

nandes,  finally  adopted  a  somewhat  more  liberal  policy,  thus 
offending  the  absolutists  and  the  clericals  who  rallied  around 
Don  Carlos,  the  brother  of  Ferdinand  and  the  representative 
of  extreme  absolutism  and  the  church  party.  Meanwhile, 
in  1831,  Ferdinand,  having  no  male  heir,  decreed  the  re- 
vival of  the  old  law  admitting  female  succession,  and  de- 
clared his  daughter,  Isabella,  his  successor.  The  king  died 
in  1833  and  Queen  Maria  Christina,  became  regent  for  her 
daughter,  Isabella  II.  Civil  war  broke  out  between  the  Car- 
lists  and  the  Christinas  (so  called  from  the  Queen  regent, 
Christina).  The  Carlists  were  at  first  successful,  but  were 
finally  defeated  and  Don  Carlos  went  into  exile,  leaving  his 
pretensions  to  his  son. 

After  the  death  of  King  Ferdinand  VII  Spain  was  a  prey 
to  internal  dissension,  strife,  confusion,  and  war;  owing  to 
the  conflict  between  the  liberal  and  the  reactionary  or  abso- 
lutist and  church  parties.  In  1843  Isabella  became  of  age 
and  assumed  the  crown.  But  this  did  not  end  the  turmoil. 
In  1851  a  concordat  was  made  with  the  Pope  by  which  all 
religions  other  than  the  Roman  Catholic  were  suppressed. 
In  1852  the  Queen's  advisors  attempted  to  put  a  measure 
of  absolutism  into  the  constitution  which  had  been  adopted. 
These  reactionary  moves  and  measures  led  to  a  new  out- 
break in  1854.  There  were  republican  and  Carlist  risings 
and  war  over  the  whole  peninsula,  followed  by  a  war  with 
Morocco  in  1859-60. 

Finally,  in  1869,  a  liberal  monarchical  constitution  was 
put  through  by  a  combination  of  republicans  under  Castelar 
and  the  progressivists  under  Prim.  Several  foreign  princes 
were  invited  to  take  the  crown,  and  Prussia  was  pushing 
Leopold,  the  Hohenzollern,  whose  candidacy  gave  rise  to 
the  Franco-Prussian  war.  The  Duke  of  Aosta,  Amadeus, 
son  of  King  Victor  Emmanuel,  was  finally  chosen  as  king  in 


142  WAR  OR   A   UNITED   WORLD 

December,  1870,  but  abdicated  in  February,  1873.  The  end 
of  his  reign  was  distracted  by  a  great  rising,  headed  by  the 
young  Don  Carlos.  Upon  the  abdication  of  King  Amadeus, 
a  republic  was  established  with  Figueras  as  First  President 
of  the  Ministry  and  Castelar  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 
But  confusion  and  war  still  prevailed,  the  Carlist  insurrec- 
tions in  the  North  continued,  and  there  were  risings  in  dif- 
ferent cities.  In  September,  1873,  Castelar  was  made  presi- 
dent of  the  executive  with  dictatorial  powers.  In  1874  Cas- 
telar was  obliged  to  withdraw,  and  Serrano  became  nomi- 
nally President  of  the  Executive,  though  in  reality  a  military 
dictator.  Meanwhile,  the  war  against  the  Carlists  was  still 
raging. 

In  December,  1874,  Serrano  proclaimed  Alfonso  XII,  son 
of  Isabella,  King,  and  the  army  declared  for  him.  Alfonso 
assumed  the  government  in  January,  1875,  being  seventeen 
years  of  age.  In  1876  the  Carlist  revolt  was  finally  and 
completely  suppressed. 

In  November,  1885,  Alfonso  died,  and  his  widow,  Chris- 
tina, became  regent.  In  the  following  May  a  posthumous 
son  was  born  who  became  king  as  Alfonso  XIII.  The  Cu- 
ban revolt  led  to  complications  resulting  in  war  between 
Spain  and  the  United  States  in  1898. 

PORTUGAL. 

The  province  of  Lusitania,  under  the  Roman  Empire,  con- 
tained most  of  that  territory  now  belonging  to  Portugal, 
the  original  inhabitants  of  which  were  composed  of  native 
Iberians  and  Celts  from  the  north  and  east.  The  earliest 
colonists  were  Greeks,  their  towns  being  located  at  the 
mouths  of  the  Minho,  the  Donroa,  and  the  Tagus.  The 
word  "Lisbon"  is  derived  from  the  Greek  word  Olisipo. 

War  and  bloodshed  may  almost  be  said  to  have  been  the 


PORTUGAL  143 

regular  order  in  this  part  of  the  Iberian  peninsula  between 
native  tribes,  and  later,  between  Christian  and  Moslem,  for 
more  than  a  thousand  years. 

In  1904,  Yusuf ,  the  Almoravide  emperor,  then  eighty-seven 
years  of  age,  became  the  acknowledged  sovereign  of  Mus- 
sulman Spain,  and  ruled  it  in  comparative  peace  for  thir- 
teen years,  dying  at  the  age  of  one  hundred.  During  this 
peaceful  interval,  Alfonso,  King  of  Leon,  Balicia,  and  Cas- 
tile, which  he  had  regained  by  the  aid  of  that  celebrated 
warrior,  Ruy  Diaz  de  Vivar,  better  known  as  the  Cid,  gave 
his  natural  daughter,  Theresa,  in  marriage  to  Count  Henry 
of  Burgundy,  who  received  with  his  bride  a  considerable 
territory  in  connection  with  the  city  of  Oporto,  and  the  title 
of  the  Count  of  Portugal  (1095).  In  this  way  the  name 
Portugal  first  appeared  in  history. 

One  of  the  first  acts  of  Yusuf 's  son,  Aly,  was  to  proclaim  a 
Holy  War  against  the  Christian  states.  He  ravaged  New 
Castile  and  carried  his  devastating  work  to  the  walls  of 
Toledo.  Alfonso's  son,  Don  Sancho,  a  boy  of  ten,  sup- 
ported by  seven  experienced  warriors,  went  against  him. 
The  armies  met  near  Ucles,  in  the  "Battle  of  the  Seven 
Counts,"  where  Aly  was  victorious  and  the  young  prince 
killed.  This  stirred  the  old  King  Alfonso  to  avenge  his  son's 
death,  and  he  defeated  Aly,  driving  him  back  into  Anda- 
lusia with  great  loss.  Under  succeeding  reigns  a  national 
spirit  developed.  Alfonso  I  took  Lisbon  from  the  Moors 
in  1147,  and  made  it  his  capital.  His  son,  Sancho  I,  gained 
the  title  of  "The  Founder." 

Alfonso  II  and  his  son  and  successor,  Sancho  II,  coming 
into  conflict  with  the  Papacy,  were  both  excommunicated. 
The  reigns  of  Alfonso  III  and  Dennis  (1279-1325)  were 
comparatively  peaceful  and  the  country  progressive.  Alfon- 
so IV  had  to  defend  his  kingdom  against  both  Moslem  and 


144  WAR   OR  A   UNITED   WORIJ) 

Castilian ;  Ferdinand,  son  of  the  next  king,  Peter  the  Severe, 
was  the  last  of  the  legitimate  line. 

The  reign  of  Peter's  illegitimate  son,  John  (1385-1433), 
is  one  of  the  most  noteworthy  in  Portugal's  history,  made 
so  largely  by  the  discoveries  and  explorations  of  his  son, 
Prince  Henry  the  Navigator.  A  campaign  against  Morocco 
in  1415  resulted  in  the  capture  of  Ceuta  and  the  acquisition 
of  nearly  one-half  of  that  country,  which  was  held  until 
1578. 

In  the  reign  of  Alfonso  V  occurred  the  Castilian  suc- 
cession disputes  (1474-76),  in  which  that  monarch  was 
defeated  at  Toro.  In  John  IPs  reign  Pope  Alexander  VI 
issued  his  famous  bull  of  demarcation,  dividing  the  new 
world  between  Portugal  and  Spain,  and  which  gave  to  the 
former  the  territory  of  Brazil.  During  the  reign  of  the 
next  monarch,  Emmanuel,  Vasco  de  Gama  doubled  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope  (1497-8),  and  in  1510  Albuquerque  cap- 
tured Goa,  on  the  Malabar  coast  of  India,  which  has  re- 
mained a  Portuguese  colony  since.  Under  John  III  Por- 
tugal reached  its  highest  pinnacle  of  power  as  a  nation,  its 
decline  beginning  with  the  expulsion  of  the  Jews  and  the 
attempts  of  King  Sebastian  (1557-78)  to  make  new  con- 
quests. The  latter  was  defeated  and  slain  by  the  Moors  at 
Alcazar  Quevir  in  1578. 

Bitter  disputes  followed  the  death  of  the  next  king,  Cardi- 
nal Henry,  resulting  in  civil  war  and  the  conquest  of  the 
kingdom  by  the  Duke  of  Alva,  and  its  annexation  to  Spain 
under  Philip  II.  A  successful  conspiracy  in  1640,  accom- 
plished by  John,  Duke  of  Braganza,  re-established  the  king- 
dom under  John  IV,  the  war  with  Spain  terminating  in  1668 
by  the  Treaty  of  Lisbon. 

During  the  reign  of  Joseph,  son  of  John  V,  the  minister 


PORTUGAL  145 

Pombal  made  a  war  upon  the  nobles  and  clergy  and  ex- 
pelled the  Jesuits  from  the  country  in  1759. 

In  November,  1807,  Crown  Prince  John,  acting  as  Re- 
gent, owing  to  the  mental  condition  of  Queen  Mary  Fran- 
ces Isabella,  was  unable  to  withstand  the  efforts  of  Napoleon 
to  divide  Portugal,  and  so  left  the  country  and  established 
himself  in  Brazil.  Later,  the  country  being  freed  by  the 
successes  of  Wellington  in  the  Spanish  campaigns,  the 
Crown  Prince  took  the  throne  as  John  VI,  though  he  con- 
tinued to  reside  in  Brazil  till  1820.  In  that  year,  leaving  his 
son  Dom  Pedro  as  Regent  in  Brazil,  he  returned  to  Por- 
tugal and  with  British  assistance  put  down  the  revolt  in  that 
country  and  restored  order. 

Dom  Pedro,  who  succeeded  to  the  crown  of  Portugal  in 
1826,  on  the  death  of  his  father,  resigned  in  favor  of  his 
seven-year-old  daughter,  Maria  de  Gloria,  who,  when  of 
age,  was  to  marry  her  uncle  Miguel.  The  latter  was  made 
Regent  in  1827  and  attempted  to  restore  the  ancient  form  of 
government,  but  was  opposed  by  Dom  Pedro,  whose  fleet, 
under  Sir  Charles  Napier,  defeated  the  fleet  of  Miguel  off 
Cape  Vincent  in  July,  1833.  In  this  struggle  Dom  Pedro 
was  assisted  by  the  Quadruple  Alliance  of  England,  France, 
Spain,  and  Portugal. 

Queen  Maria  was  fifteen  years  old  when  she  took  the 
reins,  and  it  was  said  that  neither  ruler  nor  people  knew 
how  to  conduct  a  government.  A  military  revolt  in  Sep- 
tember, 1826,  compelled  the  Queen  to  restore  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1822  representing  popular  sovereignty,  and  the  Sep- 
tembrists  further  liberalized  the  Constitution. 

Another  revolt  restored  the  Chartists  to  power  in  1842, 
and  Costa  Cabral  as  Minister  controlled  the  country  for  ten 
years,  when  the  Regenerators  came  into  power,  and  through 
the  Duke  of  Saldanha  direct  suffrage  was  established.     In 


146  WAR   OR  A   UNITED    WORLD 

1846,  Saldanha's  forces  defeated  those  of  Count  Bonfirm 
at  the  Torres  Vedras.  Later  Saldanha  was  exiled,  but  re- 
stored by  another  revolution  in  1851  and  made  Prime  Min- 
ister. 

An  uprising  of  republicans  occurred  at  Oporto  in  Jan- 
uary, 1891.  Supporters  of  Dom  Pedro  from  Brazil  at- 
tempted to  get  possession  of  the  barracks  and  proclaim  a 
republic.  They  were  driven  back  by  the  royal  troops,  one 
hundred  being  killed  and  five  hundred  taken  prisoners. 

In  1910  an  armed  rebellion  effected  the  overthrow  of  the 
monarchy  and  drove  King  Manuel  into  exile,  when  the  Na- 
tional Assembly  adopted  a  Constitution  and  established  a 
Republic  which  has  since  been  recognized  by  the  Powers. 


KINC.   (1EORCK  V 

OF    ENGT-ANH 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  BRITISH  ISLES. 

The  countries  now  known  as  Denmark,  Norway  and 
Sweden  possessed  a  warlike  population  given  over  to  sea- 
roving  long  before  England  as  a  nation  was  fully  organized. 
The  Norse  settlers  of  these  peninsulas  were  a  Teutonic  peo- 
ple, with  speech  akin  to  the  Low-Dutch,  who  had  gradually 
driven  out  the  Turanian  inhabitants,  the  Finns  and  the  Laps, 
and  occupied  these  sea-girt  lands.  Little  influenced  by  the 
Romans,  these  Scandinavians  developed  a  peculiarly  striking 
civilization,  which  sent  them  as  conquering  sea-rovers  over 
the  coasts  of  Europe  and  even  across  the  Atlantic. 

A  century  before  Egbert  united  the  Saxon  Heptarchy 
(827),  Gormo  began  his  reign  over  Denmark;  and  two  years 
before  Egbert's  ascension  to  the  English  throne  Regnard 
Lobrock  (825)  began  his  reign  in  Sweden.  These  Norse- 
men were  naturally  no  more  warlike,  perhaps,  than  the 
Angles,  Saxons,  or  Jutes  who  had  landed  in  Britain  and 
either  killed  or  made  slaves  of  the  inhabitants,  a  remnant 
fleeing  to  the  western  part  now  called  Wales,  inasmuch  as 
all  these  tribes  came  from  Denmark  and  the  adjacent 
coasts  and  were  known  as  pirates  celebrated  for  burning, 
plundering,  kidnapping  and  murder.  A  Jute  was  a  native 
of  Jutland,  or  north  Denmark;  and  Saxon  was  the  name 


148  WAR   OR    A    UNITED    WORLD 

of  the  knife  which  each  one  carried  and  with  which  he 
fought  and  slew  those  who  resisted. 

In  these  early  periods  war  was  a  common  occupation. 
The  fear  of  invasion  tended  to  unity,  and  times  of  peace 
allowed  tribal  and  personal  ambition  to  keep  the  country  in 
a  condition  of  incipient  civil  war. 

The  invasions  of  Britain  by  Julius  Caesar  (55  and 
54  B.  C.)  were  practically  two  mid-summer  incursion  inci- 
dents of  his  campaigns  into  northern  Gaul  in  those  years. 
To  cover  the  cost  of  these  expeditions  he  took  back  with 
him  large  number  of  captives  from  Britain  and  the  main- 
land, who  were  sold  as  slaves  in  the  markets  of  southern 
Europe,  and  especially  at  Rome. 

No  doubt  many  returned  with  greater  military  and  civil 
knowledge  and  they  used  it  in  later  invasions  of  the  Latin 
forces.  In  the  third  invasion,  in  which  Claudius  himself 
took  part,  Caractacus,  leader  of  the  Britons,  was  captured 
by  Ostorius  Scapula  and  sent  in  chains  to  Rome. 

The  only  unity  that  the  people  of  Britain  had  was  in  their 
religion  of  Druidism.  The  priests  with  their  treasures  were 
driven  westward  in  the  later  invasion  (43  A.  D.)  to  the 
Island  of  Mona.  As  the  Roman  generals  and  legions  came 
upon  them  the  prayers  of  peaceful  priests  and  the  impre- 
cations of  horrified  women  could  avail  nothing  in  repelling 
or  resisting  the  short  swords  of  the  Romans ;  and  there  took 
place  a  most  horrible  massacre,  from  which  the  peaceful, 
arborial  worship  of  the  Druids  never  recovered.  There  the 
cruelty  of  a  high  civilization  exceeded  that  of  the  barbarian. 
While  this  was  going  on  a  revolt  broke  out  in  the  East. 
Queen  Boadicea,  stripped  of  her  property  under  the  sem- 
blance of  law,  herself  bound  and  scourged  as  a  slave,  her 
daughters  ravished,  appealed  to  her  kinsmen  and  gathered 
them  to  the  battle,  and  then  occurred  a  tragedy  indeed  quite 


THE   BRITISH    ISLES  149 

equal  to  any  of  the  many  tragedies  of  the  fight  of  might 
against  right,  or  war  against  civilization.  The  British 
queen  defeated  the  Romans  and  burned  London  (61  A.  D.), 
but  was  soon  defeated  by  Suetonius.  The  fruits  of  the  vic- 
tory were  afterwards  perpetuated  in  the  city  of  York.  There 
Constantine,  surrounded  by  the  victorious  sixth  legion,  was 
proclaimed  Emperor  (315  A.  D.).  The  cup  of  vengeance 
was  now  full,  however,  and  running  over;  the  greed  and 
cruelty  of  degenerate  civilization  was  to  hear  another  de- 
fiance akin  to  the  ancient  cry  of  the  Roman  Senators, 
"Carthage  must  fall."  From  the  forests  of  Germany,  from 
Gaul,  from  the  Iberian  coasts  west  and  south,  from  the  Huns 
in  the  east,  from  the  very  Alpine  Mountains  came  the  cry  of 
the  oppressed :  "Rome  must  fall,  Rome  must  fall,"  and  fall 
she  did;  and  the  weight  of  foreign  military  domination 
was  lifted  from  the  British  land. 

The  northern  part  of  England  was  conquered  by  the  Danes 
in  867,  and  Danish  kings  and  earls  reigned  at  York.  They 
invaded  Wessex,  but  were  driven  from  that  section  by  Al- 
fred in  the  year  878.  However,  he  found  it  necessary  to 
make  a  treaty  with  the  Danish  king,  Guthrum,  and  he  per- 
mitted Guthrum  to  hold  the  eastern  part  of  England  in  the 
capacity  of  a  vassal.  To  prevent  further  destruction  of  the 
churches  and  monasteries,  a  wantonness  the  Danes  had  pre- 
viously taken  much  delight  in,  Alfred  also  required  Guthrum 
to  become  a  Christian.  The  immediate  followers  of  King 
Alfred  were  forced  to  do  much  fighting  with  the  Danes,  but 
finally  they  were  enabled  to  bring  all  the  Teutonic  people,  in- 
cluding Danes,  Dutch  and  English,  into  one  realm.  It  was 
King  Edward  the  Elder  who  first  received  the  homage  of  all 
Britain  in  924,  but  it  was  a  considerable  time  afterwards  be- 
fore the  Danes  were  all  subdued.  Under  Edgar,  who  reigned 
from  959  to  975,  Saxon  England  was  at  the  height  of  its 


150  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

power,  but  under  his  son,  Ethelred,  the  invasions  of  the 
Norsemen  and  Danes  began  again.  In  994  England  was  at- 
tacked by  both  Olaf,  King  of  Sweden,  and  Sweyn,  King  of 
the  Danes.  They  were  only  restrained  from  the  destruction 
of  London  by  a  dastardly  submission  and  promise  of  tribute 
by  the  timid  Ethelred,  who  fled  to  Normandy.  The  English 
nobles  made  a  tender  of  the  crown  to  the  Danish  monarch. 
Sweyn's  death  permitted  the  return  of  Ethelred,  but  the  rule 
of  the  latter  was  opposed  by  Sweyn's  son,  Canute.  Ethel- 
red shut  himself  up  in  London,  where  he  died,  leaving  the 
name  of  king  only  to  Edmund,  who,  in  turn,  was  murdered 
November  30,  1016.  So  the  Danish  rule  began  over  Eng- 
land. It  was  but  a  repetition  of  the  same  contest  between 
Saxon  and  Dane.  Canute  having  inherited  the  crown  of  his 
native  country,  Denmark,  ruled  over  Norway  and  a  part  of 
■Sweden  as  well,  and  now  he  became  king  over  all  England. 
He  was  thus  the  ruler  of  all  northern  Europe  and  the  most 
powerful  prince  of  his  time.  Scandinavian  princes  ruled  in 
Normandy  and  in  Russia,  too.  The  strife  went  on  in  Eng- 
land till  it  culminated  in  the  death  of  Harold  at  Hastings  in 
1066.  One  result  amid  all  this  confusion,  militant  and  po- 
litical, was  that  a  language  and  literature  were  assuming 
shape  with  a  vocabulary  larger  than  that  of  any  other  people 
of  Europe,  a  language  so  strong  that  it  now  dominates  the 
continents  of  America,  Australia,  New  Zealand  and  South 
Africa. 

In  William  the  Conqueror's  raid  into  the  north,  with  the 
wanton  destruction  of  villages,  towns  and  cities,  and  the 
slaughter  of  men  and  horrible  suffering  of  women  and  chil- 
dren, the  last  remnant  of  the  Saxons  were  driven  north  of 
the  Tyne,  and  left  there  as  a  buffer  between  William  and  the 
ever-restless  Celt. 

The  period  from  the  term  of  William  of  Normandy  to  the 


THE  BRITISH   ISLES  151 

accession  of  Henry  VIII,  from  1066  to  1509,  some  450  years 
of  strife,  was  given  to  wars  largely  over  the  question  of  the 
retention  of  Normandy  and  the  extension  of  English  terri- 
tory in  France.  Finally  the  claims  to  the  whole  of  France 
and  its  throne  solidified  the  opposition  and  unified  the 
French  into  driving  the  English  off  the  continent  of  Europe 
back  upon  their  island,  never  again  to  rule  over  or  govern  an 
acre  of  the  continent,  with  the  solitary  exception  of  the  Rock 
of  Gibraltar.  Two  years  after  the  accession  of  William 
(1068)  revolts  broke  out  in  the  northern  counties,  whither 
the  Saxons  had  been  driven  by  the  Normans.  Added  to  this, 
continued  landing  of  foraging  parties  of  Vikings,  harassed 
the  coast  from  the  Tweed  to  the  Humber  in  the  north.  Wil- 
liam, roused  to  terrible  anger,  swore  by  the  "splendor  of 
God"  that  he  would  lay  waste  the  land,  and  waste  it  he  did 
by  burning  a  strip  of  a  hundred  miles  wide  from  Northum- 
bria  on  the  east  to  Cumberland  on  the  west ;  only  those  who 
fled  to  Scotland  escaped.  In  the  villages  the  poor  freemen 
were  forced  to  follow  a  conquering  army,  many  of  them  glad 
to  sell  themselves  into  slavery  again  for  lack  of  food  to  eat. 
Not  satisfied  with  this,  he  turned  southwest  to  Chester,  the 
"Pride  of  Wales,"  and  laid  it  low  as  a  warning  to  the  Welsh, 
and  so  thorough  was  his  work  that  no  Viking  landed  on  that 
shore.  There  was  nothing  left  to  steal,  burn  or  kill,  and 
twenty  years  later  surveyors  passed  it  by  as  a  worthless 
desert. 

The  Conqueror  was  succeeded  by  his  second  son,  William 
Rufus.  During  the  greater  part  of  his  reign  of  13  years  he 
was  at  war  with  his  barons,  and  won  a  decisive  victory  at 
Rochester  Castle,  Kent.  His  sudden  death  gave  the  chance 
to  his  brother  Henry,  who  succeeded  him  in  1100  A.  D.  He 
immediately  issued  a  "Charter  of  Liberties,"  the  first  written 
guarantee  from  king  to  people,  small,  indeed,  in  itself,  but 


152  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

mighty  in  its  consequences,  the  precursor  of  the  "Magna 
Charta"  and  the  foundation  of  a  constitution  for  free  people. 

Henry's  brother  Robert  landed  in  England  and  demanded 
the  crown.  The  Ultra  Norman  barons  supported  him.  But 
Henry  bought  him  off  with  money,  and  Robert  left  England. 
Then  Henry  turned  his  attention  to  those  who  had  aided 
Robert,  especially  known  as  "Robert  the  Devil."  The  Earl 
of  Shrewsbury  banished  him  from  the  country,  forcing  him 
to  take  refuge  in  Normandy  with  Robert.  Henry  declared 
war  and  defeated  Robert  at  Tinchebrai,  and  held  Normandy 
as  completely  as  his  father  had  held  England.  This  victory 
and  conquest  coincide  with  the  landing  of  the  first  English 
expeditionary  force  on  the  continent  of  Europe.  Henry  I 
did  much  for  England  and  nationalism.  He  adjusted  the 
courts  of  law,  making  them  more  equitable  and  free.  He 
well  deserves  the  title  of  the  "Lion  of  Justice." 

Stephen  succeeded  Henry  I  in  1135  A.  D.  Four  years 
after  his  accession  he  was  confronted  with  the  usual  troubles. 
Matilda,  the  daughter  of  Henry,  landed  in  England  and 
claimed  the  crown.  Scotland  and  the  west  of  England  sup- 
ported her,  but  the  east  held  to  Stephen.  They  met  at  North 
Allerton,  in  Yorkshire  (1138),  in  the  battle  of  the  Standard. 
The  Scots  were  driven  home  by  the  Saxon  bowmen,  and 
England  was  for  fifteen  years  like  a  veritable  place  of  hell, 
where  robbery,  torture  and  murder  were  every-day  occur- 
rences. Neither  church  nor  state  had  force  enough  to  check 
it,  and  the  Norman's  house  went  down  in  a  black  pall  of 
despair. 

The  death  of  Stephen  broke  the  line  of  strictly  Norman 
kings  as  Henry  II's  accession  marks  the  beginning  of  the 
Plantagenets — 1154  to  1399  A.  D.  Henry's  unfortunate 
quarrels   with   the   Archbishop   of    Canterbury,    who    op- 


THE   BRITISH    ISLES  153 

posed  the  taxation  of  the  clergy  and  the  unfor- 
tunate and  shocking  murder  of  the  latter,  placed 
him  in  an  equivocal  position  before  the  people,  some 
thinking  he  was  a  monster  who  had  deliberately  murdered 
the  saint  of  God,  others  thinking  he  was  the  one  on  whom  to 
hang  a  centralized  government  sufficiently  strong  to  control 
present  conditions.  Poor  Henry  was  neither  one  nor  the 
other;  he  was  only  trying  to  do  the  best  he  could.  Henry, 
with  the  help  of  the  common  people,  made  the  Barons  recog- 
nize the  fact  that  they  were  not  the  whole  nation.  With 
Henry  we  meet  the  realization  that  noble  and  peasant  could 
live  together  in  mutual  respect.  Henry  took  possession  of 
Ireland  in  1072.  He  died  in  1189  A.  D.,  and  was  succeeded 
by  his  second  son,  Richard  I,  who  was  king  for  ten  years, 
followed  by  John,  who  reigned  for  seventeen  years.  These 
two,  so  different  in  character,  exemplify  the  leading  charac- 
teristics of  the  English  people — the  stay-at-home  and  the 
adventurer.  Richard  raised  large  sums  from  the  Jews  by 
selling  charters  to  cities  and  towns — titles  and  offices  were 
equally  for  sale — and  away  he  went  on  the  third  crusade, 
spending  the  money  with  a  reckless  prodigality,  enduring  all 
the  hardships  of  defeat  and  prison,  as  well  as  the  intoxication 
of  occasional  victory.  On  his  way  home  he  was  held  prisoner 
by  the  Emperor  of  Germany  for  an  enormous  ransom,  which 
taxed  the  people  as  cruelly  as  a  continental  war  would  have 
done,  but  he  was  able  to  check  his  brother  John  in  his  plots 
and  schemes  to  take  possession  of  the  throne.  By  his  cour- 
age and  exploits  he  made  England  proud  of  him,  and  it  may 
be  said  that  he  fairly  earned  the  title  of  "Lion-Hearted." 
John,  who  was  defeated  by  the  French  at  the  Battle  of  Bou- 
vian,  was  a  despicable  creature,  but  the  people  compelled  him 
to  be  better  than  he  wanted  to  be ;  they  forced  him  to  sign 
the  Great  Charter,  he  afterwards  taking  a  mean,  contempti- 


154  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

ble  revenge  by  burning  houses  and  committing  robbery.  At 
last,  after  being  nearly  drowned  in  the  "Wash,"  he  died 
miserably  in  an  abbey  nearby. 

During  Henry  Ill's  long  and  turbulent  reign  (1215-1272), 
Louis  of  France  was  defeated  at  Lincoln,  and  Simon  De 
Montfort  at  Evesham. 

He  issued  a  charter  granting  all  that  had  been  previously 
given,  and  enlarged  the  liberties  of  the  freemen.  He  rectified 
the  coinage,  and  subdued  the  Barons  by  the  simple  process  of 
burning  and  destroying  their  fortified  castles.  Through  his 
wife  he  claimed  the  county  of  Toulouse  and  to  enforce  his 
claim  had  to  declare  war.  His  Barons  refused  to  enter  into 
the  foreign  service,  but  were  glad  to  contribute  a  personal 
tax,  known  afterwards  as  shield  money  or  "Scutage."  With 
this  money  he  organized  an  army  made  up  of  Saxons, 
Danes  and  some  Welsh,  this  for  the  first  time  in  English  his- 
tory. The  King  had  an  army  independent  of  the  Barons, 
and  the  common  people  had  some  share  in  the  affairs  of  the 
country. 

To  effect  a  settlement  of  his  Normandy  possessions,  he  vis- 
ited the  continent  in  November,  1259,  and  while  there  a  re- 
bellion broke  out  in  the  east  of  England,  headed  by  Bigod, 
the  Earl  of  Norfolk,  and  the  Bishop  of  Durham.  Henry  im- 
mediately left  France  with  his  army  of  trained  veterans,  an 
army  all  his  own,  and  moved  north  to  give  battle.  The  duke 
and  the  bishop,  convinced  of  the  hopelessness  of  their  cause, 
submitted  at  once  and  so  forever  ended  the  opposition  of  the 
Barons  and  the  Church  to  the  crown.  After  many  judicial 
reforms,  which  were  of  permanent  value,  he  died  and  was 
succeeded  by  his  second  son,  Edward  I. 

Edward  I,  a  king  among  men,  has  been  acknowledged  by 
all  historians  as  having  possessed  a  strong  character,  but  sel- 
dom has  its  value  been  fully  appreciated.    To  the  student  of 


THE   BRITISH    ISLES  155 

history  he  is  the  pivot  of  the  coming  United  Kingdoms.  In 
the  midst  of  almost  impossible  conditions  he  conceived  the 
idea  of  a  united  country.  Think  of  the  conditions:  Wales, 
with  a  desperate  people  who  never  touched  civilization  unless 
to  destroy,  or  to  satisfy  a  wrong  done ;  Scotland,  the  venom 
of  the  vanquished  Saxons,  combined  with  the  irrepressible 
Celt,  who  for  a  thousand  years  had  contended  with  Norse- 
men, Roman,  Saxon,  Norman,  and  Ireland,  the  land  of  con- 
tinuous fighting  among  its  own  princes,  where  for  many 
years  past  tribal  contentions  had  resulted  in  little  more  than 
anarchy,  were  all  brought  into  reasonable  order.  Edward, 
seven  years  before  his  father's  death,  was  called  on  to  take 
the  management  of  the  affairs  of  England  into  his  own 
hands. 

Under  the  leadership  of  Sir  Simon  De  Montfort,  the 
barons  practically  took  all  the  powers  of  the  king  from  him 
and  vested  them  in  the  hands  of  three  committees  of  Parlia- 
ment, a  committee  from  the  Commons,  Lords  and  Royal 
Council.  The  Commons  got  the  balance  of  power,  holding 
it  to  this  day. 

De  Montfort's  position  of  absolute  power  excited  jealous 
barons,  and  they  readily  joined  Prince  Edward,  in  order  to 
overcome  him,  which  they  did  at  Evesham  in  "Worcester- 
shire." De  Montfort  died  on  the  field,  and  Prince  Edward 
took  his  place,  though  his  father  was  nominally  the  king. 
When  his  father  died,  in  1272,  Prince  Edward  was  fighting 
in  the  East  with  crusaders  in  the  third  crusade.  Much  has 
been  made  of  the  religious  side  of  the  crusades,  and  not 
enough  of  the  ethical,  for  primarily  their  whole  effort  was 
to  check  the  advance  of  the  Moslem  and  the  Huns  into  Eu- 
rope, and  this  being  achieved,  the  crusades  ceased,  and  the 
Turks  retained  possession  of  Jerusalem. 


156  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORUD 

Edward  first  subdued  Wales  and  cajoled  the  inhabitants 
into  continued  adherence  by  giving  them  his  infant  son  as 
the  first  Prince  of  Wales.  He  then  turned  to  Scotland, 
overran  it  and  garrisoned  it  with  English  troops,  and  put  a 
puppet  king  on  the  throne  in  the  person  of  John  Baliol.  He 
went  home  satisfied  that  he  had  accomplished  his  object,  but 
he  did  not  know  the  temper  of  the  Scots.  They  gathered 
around  Wallace  and  drove  the  English  out,  and  would  have 
made  Wallace  king  had  not  the  latter  refused  the  title.  This 
excited  the  jealousy  of  the  aristocrats.  Wallace  was  be- 
trayed by  Monteath  to  Edward,  taken  to  London  and  exe- 
cuted as  a  traitor,  his  head  being  placed  on  London  Bridge 
on  a  pike.  Officials  sent  the  four  quarters  of  his  body  to 
Scotland  to  intimidate  the  latter,  but  it  only  unified  them  to 
take  an  ample  revenge,  which  they  did  at  Bannockburn  in 
the  next  reign,  1314,  under  the  leadership  of  Robert  Bruce. 
Edward  died  in  1307,  having  sown  the  seed  of  a  united 
kingdom  and  founded  a  great  empire. 

The  reign  of  Edward  II  may  be  passed  over  very  briefly. 
As  he  was  always  weak,  the  Commons  gained  more  and 
more  in  power,  until  he  was  foully  murdered  by  his  unfaith- 
ful wife  and  her  paramour,  Roger  Mortimer. 

Edward  III  succeeded  his  father  in  1327,  at  the  age  of  14. 
In  the  year  1338  Edward  III  began  what  is  now  known  as 
the  One  Hundred  Years'  War.  He  boldly  claimed  the  throne 
of  France  as  the  nephew  of  Charles  IV  of  France;  this 
was  given  out  as  the  reason  for  war,  but  the  real  cause  was 
his  desire  to  retain  possession  of  the  French  lands  still  held 
by  the  English  kings.  For  eight  years  on  land  and  sea  the 
English  and  French  fought  each  other  without  any  definite 
results,  until  Edward  landed  an  army  in  France  and  invaded 
Normandy.  Cannon  were  used  for  the  first  time,  not  indeed 
to  hurl  shots  into  the  ranks  of  the  enemy,  but  for  the  pur- 


THE   BRITISH    ISLES  157 

pose  of  frightening  their  horses.  The  great  victory  was  not 
won  by  cannon  nor  by  steel-clad  knights,  but  by  the  sturdy 
bowmen,  the  common  soldiers  of  England.  Such  was  the 
battle  of  Crecy  (1346),  the  first  great  victory  on  the  conti- 
nent for  England.  Then  followed  the  siege  of  Calais,  which 
continued  for  almost  a  year  before  the  town  was  starved  in- 
to submission  and  forced  to  surrender  (1347).  After 
some  years  of  peace,  war  again  broke  out.  In  1356  Ed- 
ward again  invaded  Northern  France  and  ravaged  it.  The 
next  year  his  son,  the  Black  Prince,  gained  the  great  victory 
of  Poitiers.  With  only  10,000  men  he  found  himself  nearly 
surrounded  by  a  French  army  of  60,000,  but  by  skillful 
strategy  and  the  steady  hail  of  arrows  he  defeated  the 
French.  For  three  years  longer  the  war  went  on  until 
peace  was  made  at  Bretingy  in  1360,  by  which  France  re- 
tained Normandy,  and  the  English  held  Calais  and  the 
land  south  of  the  Loire.  The  French  also  paid  an  enor- 
mous ransom  in  gold  for  King  John,  a  sum  which  England 
badly  needed  at  the  time. 

The  deposition  and  murder  of  Richard  II  occurred  in 
1399,  and  the  reign  of  Henry  IV  may  be  described  as 
abounding  in  semi-insurrections,  culminating  in  the  Battle 
of  Shrewsbury,  in  the  year  1403,  which  checked  the  revolu- 
tionary spirit  to  some  extent. 

Henry  V  succeeded  in  1413,  in  troublous  times,  to  the 
throne  of  his  father.  In  1415  he  resumed  the  war  with 
France,  more  to  distract  the  people's  attention  from  domestic 
affairs  than  for  any  other  reason.  He  besieged  Harfleur  and 
took  it;  but  his  army  had  suffered  so  much  from  sickness 
that  after  leaving  a  garrison  in  the  place  he  moved  north 
toward  Calais,  intending  to  rest  and  reinforce  his  army.  On 
the  way  he  was  met  at  Agincourt  by  a  Franch  army  of 
50,000,  and  fought  against  it  with  only  8,000  men.     The 


158      .  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

ground  was  too  soft  to  support  iron-clad  horses  and  mail- 
clad  knights,  and  many  went  down  before  they  reached  the 
foe.  To  go  down  that  day  was  to  die.  Those  that  reached 
the  English  bowmen  expected  to  meet  defenseless  men  and 
cut  them  down,  but  on  the  contrary  were  received  on  the 
point  of  stout  stakes  driven  into  the  ground,  the  points  of 
which  stopped  the  enemy's  horses  and  caused  great  confu- 
sion. The  battle  axe  and  the  heavy  pointed  mace  did  the 
rest,  and  the  victory  of  Agincourt  (1415)  was  won.  From 
the  pointed  sticks  of  Agincourt  evolved  the  modern  bayonet, 
which,  with  butt  on  ground  and  point  before,  was  to  turn  a 
charge  of  cavalry. 

Henry  VI  was  proclaimed  King  of  England  and  France 
when  in  his  cradle,  and  crowned  first  at  Westminster  and 
then  at  Paris.  But  Charles  resisted.  The  Duke  of  Bedford, 
as  regent  for  Henry  VI,  took  command  of  the  English  forces 
in  France.  For  more  than  five  years  they  fought,  till  France 
north  of  the  Loire  was  largely  won.  Bedford,  victorious  at 
Crevant  and  Verneuil,  determined  to  reduce  Orleans.  With 
cannon  to  batter  down  the  defenses,  victory  seemed  certain, 
and  if  Orleans  was  occupied,  opposition  would  be  overcome. 
It  looked  very  dark  for  France.  But  Joan  of  Arc,  a  girl  of 
eighteen,  entered  the  lists.  She  inspired  her  countrymen 
with  fresh  courage,  and  led  them  from  victory  to  victory. 
The  English  feared  her  and  thought  she  was  a  witch.  But 
she  converted  the  weakness  of  France  into  strength,  and  the 
English  began  to  show  signs  of  weakness.  Deserted  at  last 
by  the  king  she  served,  she  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  English. 
Her  body  was  burned  at  Rouen  in  the  year  1431.  The 
flames  that  burned  her  warmed  her  countrymen  to  enthu- 
siasm, and  England  lost  all  its  French  lands ;  so  the  Hundred 
Years'  War  came  to  an  end.  It  was  begun  by  Edward  III 
(1338)  and  finished  by  Henry  VI  in  1453. 


THE   BRITISH    ISIyES  159 

Before  Henry  VI  had  reached  his  thirtieth  year,  England 
had  lost  all  her  possessions  on  the  continent  for  which  the 
Hundred  Years'  War  had  been  fought  with  France,  except 
Calais.  Henry  VI  had  married  Margaret  of  Anjou,  and  the 
English  people,  angered  by  the  loss  of  the  French  provinces 
and  jealous  of  this  French  queen,  had  an  especial  hatred  for 
the  Duke  of  Suffolk  who  had  negotiated  the  treaty  with 
France,  and  was  regarded  as  one  of  the  murderers  of  the 
Duke  of  Gloucester,  friend  of  the  people.  Suffolk  was  im- 
peached and  banished  but  murdered  on  the  boat  going  to 
Calais.  Another  illustration  of  the  popular  discontent  at 
this  time  was  the  insurrection,  headed  by  Jack  Cade,  a  native 
of  Ireland,  who  for  his  misdeeds  had  been  exiled  to  France. 
Assuming  the  name  of  Mortimer,  with  a  force  of  20,000 
men,  he  attempted  to  capture  London  and  seize  the  govern- 
ment, but  after  a  few  days  of  riot  was  captured  and  killed 
(1450). 

The  "Wars  of  the  Roses"  between  the  rival  houses  of 
Lancaster  (Red  Rose),  and  York  (White  Rose),  which  con- 
tinued for  thirty  years,  in  which  twelve  pitched  battles  were 
fought,  eighty  princes  of  the  royal  blood  killed  and  the  no- 
bility almost  exterminated,  began  with  the  battle  of  St.  Al- 
bans, May  23,  1455,  where  the  Yorkists  gained  a  complete 
victory.  Similar  results  followed  at  Bloreheath,  Strafford- 
shire  (1459),  and  at  Northampton  (1460).  King  Henry 
was  taken  prisoner  and  Queen  Margaret  fled  with  the  young 
Prince  Edward  to  Scotland.  Richard,  who  was  in  the  strict 
line  of  descent,  now  demanded  the  crown,  but  Queen  Mar- 
garet raised  an  army  and  at  the  battle  of  Wakefield  (460) 
Richard  was  slain. 

The  battle  of  Bosworth  Field  (1485)  put  an  end  to  the 
contest,  the  lives  of  more  Englishmen  having  been  lost  in  a 


160  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

single  battle  than  in  the  course  of  the  wars  with  France  for 
forty  years  previous. 

The  Earl  of  Richmond,  Henry  Tudor,  was  thirty  years 
of  age  when  he  was  crowned  on  the  field  of  Bosworth  as 
Henry  VII,  the  crown  having  been  recovered  from  a  thorn 
bush.  Various  insurrections  soon  required  his  attention, 
one  under  Lord  Lovel,  1486,  pretender  to  the  House  of 
York;  Lambert  Simnel,  whose  followers  were  defeated  at 
Stoke-upon-Trent,  June  16,  1487,  and  Perkin  Warbeck, 
finally  beheaded  in  the  Tower,  November  28,  1498.  Henry 
was  also  entangled  in  an  alliance  for  defending  the  Duchy  of 
Brittany  against  Charles  VIII  of  France.  In  1509  Henry 
VIII  succeeded  to  the  throne,  and  joined  the  League  of  Cam- 
brai  which  Pope  Julius  II,  with  Maximilian  of  Germany  and 
Louis  XII  of  France,  had  formed  against  Venice  the  previ- 
ous year.  In  1511,  however,  Julius  decided  that  the  French 
should  also  be  expelled  from  Italy  and,  without  scruple  as  to 
his  former  alliance,  formed  the  Holy  League,  in  which  Max- 
imilian, the  republic  of  Venice,  Ferdinand  of  Spain,  the 
Swiss,  and  King  Henry  of  England,  all  joined  for  the  nomi- 
nal purpose  of  preserving  the  Church,  but  actually  to  drive 
the  French  out  of  Italian  territory.  The  only  ally  of  France 
was  James  IV  of  Scotland.  The  Battle  of  the  Spurs  was 
fought  August  16,  1513,  at  Lis,  between  the  English  and 
French  cavalry,  where  the  French  were  routed.  During 
Henry's  absence  on  the  continent,  the  Scotch  invaded  the 
north  of  England  and  were  met  and  defeated  by  the  Earl 
of  Surrey  at  the  battle  of  Flodden,  where  James  IV  was 
slain.  The  Scotch  had  crossed  the  Tweed  with  an  army  of 
50,000  men,  while  the  earl  had  but  26,000  when  he  en- 
countered the  enemy  at  the  foot  of  the  Cheviots,  September 
9,  1513. 

Peace  was  made  the  next  year  with  both  Scotland  and 


THE   BRITISH    ISI.ES  161 

France,  and  May  31,  1520,  at  the  invitation  of  the  French 
king,  Henry  sailed  to  Calais  to  meet  Francis  I  of  France  and 
Charles  V  of  Germany  on  "The  Field  of  the  Cloth  of  Gold." 
Henry  acted  as  a  sort  of  arbiter  between  the  other  two  mon- 
archs.  English  diplomats  may  be  said  to  have  held  the  bal- 
ance of  power  ever  since  between  France  and  Germany. 
Through  all  the  centuries  of  continental  warfare  it  has  sur- 
vived to  the  present  outbreak.  Passing  Henry's  domestic 
and  papal  quarrels,  and  the  executions  instituted  by  himself 
and  his  daughter,  Queen  Mary,  what  was  regarded  as  a  na- 
tional disgrace  to  England  occurred  in  the  last  year  of  her 
reign,  when  the  Duke  of  Guise,  January  7,  1558,  surprised 
and  captured  Calais. 

After  the  battle  of  Hastings,  the  Scandinavians  made  no 
further  encroachments  upon  the  British  possessions.  Chris- 
tianity became  established  in  Sweden  in  the  middle  of  the 
twelfth  century,  and  later  on  in  Finland.  Norway  being 
united  to  Sweden,  the  latter  increased  in  power  and  extent 
under  its  warrior  rulers.  All  the  Slavic  lands  on  the  south 
and  east  coasts  of  the  Baltic,  including  Lauenburg,  Mecklen- 
burg, Pomerania,  the  coast  of  Courland,  and  Livonia — from 
Holstein  to  Esthonia — were  united  under  Waldemar  II., 
1202-1241.  The  kingdom  of  the  latter  fell  to  pieces,  Wal- 
demar being  captured — while  out  hunting — by  Henry  of 
Schewin;  and  Hamburg  and  Lubeck  became  free  cities, 
while  the  German  provinces  returned  to  that  government. 
By  the  Union  of  Calmar,  1397,  the  three  Scandinavian 
provinces  were  united  under  Margareta  of  Denmark.  Gus- 
tavus  Vasa  led  a  revolt  against  the  tyranny  of  the  Danish, 
broke  the  Union  of  Calmar,  expelled  the  Danes,  and  he 
was  crowned  King  of  Sweden  in  1544. 

Elizabeth's  long  reign  from  1558  to  1603,  though  filled 
v/ith  intrigue,  executions,  expeditions  and  explorations,  was 


162  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

comparatively  free  from  martial  warfare.  Two  exceptions 
may  be  noted,  the  most  prominent  among  which  is  the  at- 
tack and  destruction  of  the  Spanish  "Invincible  Armada"  in 
1588.  According  to  Motley  the  Armada  included  ten 
squadrons,  or  more  than  130  ships,  carrying  upwards  of 
3,000  cannon.  It  was  intended  to  carry  twenty  thousand 
soldiers  and  to  receive  on  its  way  30,000  more  from  the 
Spanish  army  in  the  Netherlands.  The  causes  for  this  at- 
tempt on  the  part  of  Philip  II  of  Spain  are  not  hard  to  find : 
First,  the  refusal  of  Elizabeth  to  marry  him;  second,  the 
surrender  to  him  by  Mary  of  Scotland  of  her  claims  to  the 
throne,  and  lastly  the  influence  of  Rome.  England  was  not 
yet  Protestant,  neither  was  she  Catholic,  but  the  domination 
of  Spain  would  make  her  Catholic.  Spain  had  the  money 
and  also  the  greatest  navy  in  the  world.  When  the  navy 
was  assembled  at  Cadiz,  Sir  Francis  Drake  entered  the  port 
and  sunk  more  than  a  hundred  of  the  Spanish  ships.  This 
delayed  the  movement  for  a  year.  Indeed,  when  the  ships 
came  it  took  stout  hearts  to  go  out  and  meet  them,  but  How- 
ard, Drake,  Hawkins,  Raleigh,  and  a  host  of  other  brave 
captains,  were  ready.  They  captured  several  of  the  enemy's 
vessels,  and  one  was  blown  up.  The  Spaniards  made  for 
Calais  to  repair  damages  and  take  a  fresh  start,  but  Drake 
followed  them,  threatening  them  with  fire-ships,  and  forced 
them  to  make  sail  north,  closely  pursued  by  the  English,  who 
had  not  yet  lost  a  single  ship.  The  storm  was  so  furious 
that  all  along  the  coast  of  Scotland  and  the  north  and  west 
of  Ireland  the  sea  was  strewn  with  the  wreck  of  the  Spanish 
boats. 

The  other  prominent  military  movement  of  Elizabeth's 
reign  was  the  rebellion  which  broke  out  in  Ireland  in  1595. 
The  condition  of  that  island  had  continued  to  be  deplorable 
from  the  time  of  its  partial  conquest  by    Henry  II.     The 


THE  BRITISH   ISLES  163 

chiefs  of  the  native  tribes  were  constantly  fighting  among 
themselves,  while  the  attempts  of  the  English  to  force  the 
Protestant  religion  upon  them  was  bitterly  resisted;  while 
as  a  climax  the  greed  and  misgovernment  of  the  rulers  kept 
the  people  in  a  condition  of  misery.  A  war  of  extermina- 
tion began  under  Elizabeth  became  so  relentless  that  the 
Queen  herself  said  if  the  work  of  destruction  continued 
"she  should  have  nothing  left  but  ashes  and  corpses  to  rule 
over."  The  barren  victory  gained  by  England  has  carried 
its  own  curse  ever  since. 

What  was  called  "The  Thirty  Years'  War"  extended 
from  1618  to  1648.  Inaugurated  by  the  House  of  Austria 
for  the  purpose  of  subjugating  Europe  through  the  ruin  of 
German  Protestantism,  it  will  be  sufficient  here  to  refer  to 
the  part  that  England  took  in  it.  The  intense  belief  in  the 
Divine  Right  of  Kings  on  the  part  of  James  I,  his  con- 
temptuous refusal  to  hear  and  grant  the  petitions  of  the 
Puritans,  his  blind  adhesion  to  the  Episcopacy,  in  which  he 
fancied  his  own  preservation  was  involved,  and  the  anti- 
Catholic  laws,  drove  English  Catholics  to  Virginia,  and 
the  Puritans  to  Massachusetts.  Within  ten  years  it  is  said 
that  more  than  twenty  thousand  left  England  for  the  land 
cf  the  free.  James'  adherence  to  the  conception  of  the 
Divine  Right  of  Kings  was  sharpening  the  axe  for  the  neck 
of  his  son  Charles,  and  in  principle  opposed  the  powers  of 
a  democratic  House  of  Commons. 

To  understand  the  execution  of  Charles,  one  must  first 
bear  in  mind  the  actions  of  James  I  of  England  and  James 
VI  of  Scotland.  The  former  had  become  King  of  England 
by  a  fortuitous  combination  of  circumstances.  His  rela- 
tions with  his  mother  were  never  normal.  The  awful  mur- 
der scene  in  Holyrood  Palace,  while  he  was  yet  unborn,  the 
seeds  of  bitterness  sown  there,  the  strife  of  nobles  seeking 


164  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

place,  the  religious  hatred  and  the  awakening  of  the  people, 
all  the  panorama  of  the  Thirty  Years  played  in  the  person 
of  James.  But  the  part  that  England  took  in  the  war  itself 
was  small,  and  consisted  largely  in  the  sending  of  volun- 
teers and  soldiers  of  fortune,  mostly  Scotch  Presbyterians 
and  English  Puritans  who  fought  in  the  Netherlands  and 
under  the  incompetent  Duke  of  Buckingham  at  Rochelle. 

Though  James  made  a  feeble  effort  to  assist  the  Protest- 
ant party  in  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  his  truckling  attitude 
toward  Spain  and  the  fines  he  imposed  upon  Catholics  so 
angered  the  Commons  that  the  Gunpowder  Plot  to  blow 
up  Parliament  House  when  the  King  opened  the  session,  was 
entered  into  by  a  Catholic  gentleman,  Robert  Catesby,  and 
Guy  Fawkes,  a  Yorkshireman.  The  discovery  and  execu- 
tion of  the  plotters  resulted  in  the  employment  of  greater 
severity  toward  both  Puritans  and  Catholics  on  the  part  of 
the  King. 

Under  Charles  I  began  the  great  Civil  War  between  King 
and  Parliament,  involving  partly  religious  and  partly  politi- 
cal questions.  The  struggle  commenced  in  1642  with  the 
battle  of  Edgehill,  Warwickshire,  in  which  the  Roundheads 
were  defeated  by  the  King's  Cavaliers.  Cromwell's  army 
of  "Ironsides"  proved  of  better  fighting  quality,  however, 
and  gained  victories  at  Manton  Moor,  1644,  and  Naseby, 
1645,  and  also  in  the  second  war  of  1648,  which  proved  de- 
cisive. 

Charles  II  broke  faith  with  the  Dutch,  seized  New  Am- 
sterdam, and  thus  brought  on  a  war  with  Holland.  At  the 
same  time  efforts  of  English  merchants  to  get  the  exclusive 
possession  of  foreign  trade  involved  England  into  a  war 
with  France.  In  1667  a  Dutch  fleet  sailed  up  the  Thames. 
It  was  said  to  have  been  manned  largely  by  English  sailors 


THE;  BRITISH   ISLES  165 

who  had  not  received  their  pay.  They  made  their  own 
terms  of  peace.  In  the  secret  treaty  which  Louis  XIV 
made  with  Charles  at  Dover  (1670)  Charles  deliberately 
sold  himself  to  the  French  monarch  for  £300,000,  with 
which  to  carry  out  his  scheme  to  destroy  the  political  liberty 
and  Protestant  faith  of  Holland.  This  new  war  with  the 
Dutch  caused  a  financial  panic  in  England  and  ruined  great 
numbers  of  people.  The  Rye-House  Plot,  which  had  for  its 
object  the  murder  of  the  King  and  also  his  brother  James, 
resulted  in  the  execution  of  prominent  Englishmen,  some 
of  whom  were  unquestionably  innocent.  The  Rebellion  of 
the  Duke  of  Monmouth,  ending  with  the  battle  of  Sedge- 
moor,  in  Somersetshire  (1685),  the  Bloody  Assizes  con- 
ducted by  Judge  Jeffreys,  and  the  King's  quarrel  with  the 
Bishops,  were  among  the  most  sanguinary  events  of  the 
reign  of  James  II.  His  abdication  and  flight  mark  the  van- 
ishing of  religious  and  political  persecution,  as  a  reaction 
on  the  part  of  the  English  people,  just  as  the  administration 
of  Charles  II  had  resulted  in  the  abolition  of  feudal  dues 
and  the  establishment  of  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act. 

The  Revolution  of  1688,  which  established  a  large  meas- 
ure of  personal  liberty  and  the  liberty  of  the  press,  was  still 
an  incentive  to  strife.  In  1689  James  II  landed  in  Ireland, 
established  his  headquarters  at  Dublin,  and  issued  his  Act 
of  Attainder  summoning  all  who  were  in  rebellion  against 
his  authority  to  appear  for  trial  on  a  certain  day  or  be  de- 
clared traitors,  subject  to  be  hung,  drawn  and  quartered,  and 
to  have  their  property  confiscated.  Londonderry  was  be- 
sieged and  the  inhabitants  brought  to  a  state  of  starvation. 
Finally  they  were  relieved  by  an  expedition  from  the  river. 
The  battle  of  the  Boyne  the  next  year  (1690),  where  James 
was  thoroughly  defeated,  settled  the  question  in  Ireland; 
while  the  massacre  in  the  vale  of  Glencoe,  Scotland,  though 


166  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

never  settled  as  it  should  have  been  by  the  punishment  of 
the  assassins,  practically  ended  the  war.  The  Peace  of 
Ryswick,  a  village  of  Holland,  where  the  treaty  was  signed 
between  William  and  Louis  XIV,  making  the  Princess  Anne 
successor  to  the  English  throne,  ended  the  conspiracy  be- 
tween Louis  and  the  Stuarts  to  change  the  religion  of  Eng- 
land and  brought  the  continental  wars  to  a  close  (1697). 

Louis  XIV,  who  had  only  been  prevented  by  the  earnest 
efforts  of  William  from  annexing  the  Netherlands  to  France, 
desired  also  that  his  grandson,  Philip  of  Anjou,  on  the 
death  of  the  feeble  Charles  II,  should  become  King  of 
Spain.  This  purpose  of  Louis  to  annex  a  kingdom  was  an 
important  influence  inducing  him  to  sign  the  Treaty  of  Rys- 
wick. William  had  tried  to  prevent  Louis'  design  on  Spain 
by  the  conclusion  of  two  secret  treaties,  and  also  of  a  Triple 
Alliance  made  by  England,  Holland,  and  Germany,  as 
against  France.  Louis  XIV  had  signed  these  treaties,  but, 
it  appeared,  without  the  slightest  intention  of  observing 
them.  When  the  king  of  Spain  died,  in  1700,  besides  send- 
ing his  grandson,  Philip  of  Anjou,  to  Madrid  to  occupy  the 
throne,  Louis  placed  French  garrisons  in  the  border  towns 
of  the  Spanish  Netherlands,  and  avowed  it  his  purpose  to 
make  the  son  of  the  exiled  monarch,  James  II,  sovereign  of 
England,  Scotland  and  Ireland.  Accordingly  began  the 
War  of  the  Spanish  Succession,  which  really  constituted  a 
second  Hundred  Years'  War  between  England  and  France. 

Spain  had  neither  money  nor  troops  with  which  to  assist 
Louis,  and  the  latter  had  no  allies  except  the  Elector  of 
Bavaria  and  the  Dukes  of  Modena  and  Savoy.  Arrayed 
against  him  was  the  Grand  Alliance  entered  into  in  Septem- 
ber, 1701,  including  England,  the  Netherlands,  Austria,  the 
German  Empire,  and  a  little  later  Portugal.  Austria  was 
supposedly  most  interested  as  possessing  the  rightful  claim- 


THE   BRITISH    ISLES  167 

ant  for  the  Spanish  throne;  but  each  power  had  its  private 
interests  to  protect.  England's  purposes  were :  1 — The  pro- 
tection of  its  government  at  home.  2 — The  maintenance  of 
a  Protestant  power  in  Holland.  3 — The  retention  of  its 
possessions  on  the  American  continent.  John  Churchill, 
Duke  of  Marlborough,  commanded  the  English  and  Dutch 
forces,  and  Prince  Eugene  of  Savoy  was  leader  of  the  Ger- 
man forces.  Both  were  superior  generals.  Voltaire  said  of 
Marlborough  that  "he  never  besieged  a  fortress  which  he 
did  not  take,  nor  fought  a  battle  which  he  did  not  win."  He 
was  pronounced  "avaricious,  unscrupulous,  and  perfidious" ; 
but,  as  Napoleon  said,  "The  worse  the  man  the  better  the  sol- 
dier," and  perhaps  those  qualities  enhanced  his  success. 

Marlborough  captured  the  forts  in  the  Spanish  Nether- 
lands which  Louis  XIV  had  garrisoned  in  order  to  menace 
Holland,  and  carried  the  war  into  Bavaria.  On  the  19th 
of  August,  1704,  was  fought  the  battle  of  Blenheim,  which 
the  French  call  Hochstet  and  the  Germans  Plentheim.  The 
allies  had  about  5,000  killed  and  8,000  wounded,  the  greater 
part  of  the  loss  occurring  in  the  army  of  Prince  Eugene. 
The  French  army  was  almost  annihilated.  Out  of  60,000 
men,  not  more  than  20,000  ever  reassembled.  Some  12,000 
were  killed,  14,000  taken  prisoners,  and  the  capture  included 
all  the  cannon,  colors,  tents  and  equipages,  the  general,  Tal- 
lard,  commanding  the  French,  and  1,200  officers  of  rank.  In 
less  than  a  month  Bavaria  was  subjugated.  Gibraltar  was 
captured  the  same  year  by  the  English  and  has  remained  in 
their  possession  ever  since.  Ulm,  Landau,  Treves,  and 
Traerbach  surrendered  to  the  allies  before  the  close  of  the 
year,  and  the  Hungarians  laid  down  their  arms.  In  1705 
the  Archduke  Charles,  with  a  small  English  army,  landed  in 
Spain  and  captured  Barcelona.  Aragon  and  the  neighbor- 
ing provinces  submitted  to  him  and  the  next  year  he  entered 


168  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

Madrid.  Marlborough  penetrated  to  the  heart  of  Brabant 
and  found  the  French  under  Villeroi  at  Ramillies.  The  de- 
feat which  the  latter  suffered  here  (May,  1706),  cost  France 
5.000  killed  and  wounded  and  15,000  prisoners.  In  1707 
the  English  army  was  defeated  in  Spain  at  the  battle  of 
Almanza;  but  the  next  year  Marlborough  and  Eugene  joined 
their  forces  in  Flanders,  making  an  army  of  80,000  men. 
Although  the  French  under  the  Duke  of  Burgundy  and 
Vendome  numbered  100,000,  they  were  put  to  rout  at  Oude- 
narde  (July,  1708),  with  a  loss  of  more  than  10,000  sol- 
diers. Ghent,  Bruges,  and  Lille  capitulated.  The  next 
year  a  battle  at  Malplaquet,  near  Mons  (September,  1709), 
constituted  a  partial  victory  for  the  French,  inasmuch  as 
they  lost  but  8,000  men  disabled,  while  the  allies  lost  21,000. 
A  victory  over  the  Germans  in  Spain  (December,  1710) 
saved  the  crown  to  Philip  V.  The  defeat  of  Eugene  at 
Denain,  France,  (July,  1712),  with  the  loss  of  seventeen 
battalions,  practically  ended  the  war. 

Three  treaties  followed:  that  of  Utrecht  (April  11, 
1713),  between  France,  Spain,  England,  the  Netherlands, 
Savoy,  and  Portugal;  that  of  Rastadt  (March  7,  1714),  be- 
tween France  and  the  Emperor;  and  the  Treaty  of  Baden 
(June  7,  1714)  between  France  and  the  Empire.  As  a  re- 
sult Louis  XIV  was  compelled  to  acknowledge  Protestant 
succession  in  England,  to  renounce  the  union  of  France  and 
Spain — though  Philip  was  allowed  to  retain  his  crown,  and 
England  held  her  possessions  of  Newfoundland,  Acadia, 
and  the  territory  of  the  Hudson  Bay  Company. 

The  military  events  in  the  reigns  of  the  first  two 
Georges  included  the  quelling  of  the  insurrection  and  battle 
of  Sheriffmuir,  in  Perthshire,  Scotland  (1715)  ;  the  War  of 
Jenkins'  Ear  (1739),  directed  against  restrictions  on  trade; 
the  War  of  the  Austrian  Succession,  in  which  George  II 


THE   BRITISH    ISIyES  169 

led  his  own  troops  at  the  battle  of  Dettingen,  Bavaria; 
also  the  battle  of  Fontenoy,  in  the  Netherlands,  in  which  the 
French  were  victorious;  and  the  Seven  Years'  War  in  Eu- 
rope and  America  (1756-1763). 

England  espoused  the  claim  of  Maria  Theresa  to  be  the 
legitimate  heir  to  the  house  of  Austria,  and  opposed  the 
efforts  of  Frederick  the  Great  of  Prussia,  Louis  XV  of 
France  and  Philip  V  of  Spain,  to  place  Charles,  the  Elector 
of  Bavaria,  who  had  assumed  the  title  of  Duke  of  Austria, 
on  the  throne  of  Austria  with  the  title  of  Charles  VII.  Hol- 
land was  also  on  the  side  of  Maria  Theresa.  The  need  of 
preserving  a  balanced  condition  among  the  powers  of  Eu- 
rope had  come  to  be  recognized;  and  both  England  and 
Holland  desired  to  maintain  Austria  as  a  check  against  their 
ancient  enemy,  France.  After  some  eight  years  of  righting 
an  advantageous  peace  for  England  was  secured  by  the 
Treaty  of  Aix-la-Chapelle  in  1748. 

A  clash  between  French  and  English  colonists  in  India  in 
1751  followed  by  the  smothering  of  146  English  residents 
in  the  "Black  Hole"  of  Calcutta  in  1756  by  the  native  Prince 
of  Bengal,  led  to  the  establishment  of  the  British  Empire 
in  India  in  1757.  Before  this  contest  had  closed,  however, 
in  Asia  another  had  broken  out  in  America.  In  Europe 
the  aggressive  activities  of  Frederick  II  of  Prussia  had 
produced  such  alarm  that  an  alliance  to  check  his  further  ad- 
vance had  been  formed  by  France,  Russia,  Austria,  and  Po- 
land. England  found  it  for  her  interest  to  side  with  Fred- 
erick in  order  to  prevent  France  from  getting  control  of  her 
American  possessions.  This  course  later  induced  France 
to  lend  her  aid  to  the  American  colonists  in  securing  their 
independence,  and  the  latter  were  eventually  successful. 

Discontent  among  the  Irish  and  European  antagonisms 
of  various  sorts  led  to  repeated  schemes  for  the  invasion  of 


170  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

Great  Britain.  An  attempt  which  was  made  by  a  French 
fleet  and  10,000  men  under  the  guidance  of  Wolfe  Tone  on 
Ireland  in  December,  1796,  was  rendered  fruitless  by  a 
storm,  and  another  futile  effort  was  made  in  Pembrokeshire ; 
but  the  master  stroke  was  arranged  to  be  made  by  the 
united  Dutch,  French,  and  Spanish  fleets.  Nelson  did  much 
toward  allaying  the  ardor  of  the  latter  off  Cape  Vincent, 
February  14,  1797 ;  and  the  French  and  Dutch  fleet  of  the 
Texel,  which  had  sailed  under  De  Winter  with  15,000  men 
for  the  invasion  of  Ireland,  was  thoroughly  defeated  by 
Duncan  at  Camperdown,  on  October  11   of  that  year. 

Napoleon,  with  his  purpose  of  conquering  the  east  set 
sail  for  Egypt  May  20,  1798,  and  managed  to  escape  the 
vigilance  of  Nelson,  who,  however,  destroyed  the  French 
fleet  after  the  troops  had  disembarked,  in  the  Battle  of  the 
Nile  August  1.  Then  Napoleon,  with  Spain's  assistance, 
prepared  to  invade  England  in  1804;  but  the  combined  fleets 
of  the  two  were  driven  by  the  English  into  Cadiz  harbor. 
When  in  the  spring  of  1805  they  left  that  harbor  and  had 
reached  Cape  Trafalgar,  on  the  southern  coast  of  Spain, 
the  projected  invasion  of  Great  Britain  collapsed;  for  their 
fleet  was  destroyed  by  Nelson  in  a  naval  battle.  A  few 
years  later  Sir  Arthur  Wellesley  drove  Napoleon's  brother 
Joseph  from  the  throne  of  Spain  and  the  crown  was  re- 
stored to  that  nation. 

The  English  opposition  to  Napoleon  culminated  Sunday, 
June  18,  1815,  in  the  battle  fought  at  Waterloo.  Not  all 
the  forces  of  the  allies  were  engaged,  though,  as  they  were, 
they  greatly  outnumbered  the  French.  Austria  had  fur- 
nished 300,000  men ;  Russia,  170,000 ;  Prussia,  124,000,  un- 
der Blucher;  and  there  were  95,000  Dutch  and  English  un- 
der Wellington's  immediate  command.  Napoleon  had 
crossed  the  Sambre  June  15,  with  124,000  men  and    350 


THE  BRITISH  ISLES  171 

cannon.  Grouchy,  with  34,000  men,  was  expected  to  hold 
back  the  Prussians  under  Blucher.  Wellington,  with  a  force 
of  72,000,  was  alined  in  front  of  the  village  of  Waterloo 
when  Napoleon  and  Ney,  with  an  aggregate  of  72,000 
troops,  made  their  attack.  With  the  arrangement  of  the 
French  artillery  and  the  readiness  of  Napoleon's  cavalry, 
experts  have  held  that  Wellington  must  have  been  de- 
feated had  Grouchy  held  Blucher's  Prussians  in  check.  The 
arrival  of  the  latter  turned  the  tide,  and  Napoleon's  sun  had 
set.  Waterloo  ended  the  second  Hundred  Years'  War  with 
France. 

Since  Waterloo,  aside  from  internal  troubles — notably  the 
"Manchester  Massacre"  of  1819 — have  occurred  the  Opium 
War  with  China  (1839)  ;  the  War  in  the  Crimea  (1854) ; 
the  Rebellion  in  India  (1857)  ;  the  War  against  the  Der- 
vishes of  the  Soudan  (1896-1898) ;  and  the  Boer  War  of 
1899,  in  which  England  conquered  the  Dutch  Republics  of 
South  Africa. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  RISE  OF  RUSSIA. 

Previous  to  the  origin  of  modern  Moscow  and  the  as- 
cension of  George  Danielovitch  to  its  headship  in  1303, 
which  event  followed  closely  the  Lithuanian  conquest,  Rus- 
sia's wars  had  been  principally  confined  within  her  own 
borders,  nor  were  these  conditions  changed  for  many  years. 
There  were  wars  about  the  right  of  headship  of  the  royal 
family  and  the  throne  of  Kief,  and  about  other  civil  rights. 
Two  terrible  internal  conflicts  desolated  Russia  in  the  reign 
of  the  Grand  Prince  Sviatopolk  (1093-1113),  one  with  re- 
spect to  the  principality  of  Tchernigof,  the  other  concern- 
ing Volhynia  and  Red  Russia.  Such  wars  include  also  those 
between  the  heirs  of  Vladimir  Monomachus,  attacks  upon 
and  capture  of  the  capital,  Kief;  wars  with  Novgorod,  in 
one  battle  of  which,  that  of  Lipetsk  (1216),  9,000  men  were 
killed  and  but  sixty  prisoners  taken;  wars  of  the  Tatars,  or 
Tartars,  against  the  Polovsti,  whom  the  Russians  assisted, 
and  the  battle  of  the  Kalka,  in  which  10,000  Kievians  alone 
were  slain;  the  battle  of  Riazan,  in  which  the  town  was 
sacked  and  burned ;  the  battle  of  Kolomna  on  the  Oka,  and 
of  the  Sit  (1238),  when  "Russian  heads  fell  beneath  the 
sword  of  the  Tartars  as  grass  beneath  the  scythe";  when 
Moscow  and  thirteen  other  cities  were  given  to  the  flames. 


CZAR  NICHOLAS 
OK  RUSSIA 


THE  RISE  OF  RUSSIA  173 

There  were  also  struggles  between  the  contending  influences 
as  to  the  location  of  Russia's  capital,  ending  with  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  supremacy  of  Moscow.  For  upwards  of  two 
hundred  years  these  contests  continued ;  peace  was  unknown, 
nor  were  these  internal  dissensions  brought  to  a  close  until 
the  peace  of  1494.  However,  peace  was  of  short  duration. 
Alexander,  the  second  son  of  Casimir,  took  up  arms  to  break 
the  yoke  imposed  by  the  Polish  Catholics  upon  the  orthodox 
Russians.  The  struggle  between  Alexander,  second  son  of 
Casimir  IV  of  Luthuania  and  Poland,  and  Ivan  or  John  III 
of  Russia,  beginning  1492,  was  a  long-drawn-out  series  of 
bitter  contests,  ending  in  a  truce  of  six  years,  brought  about 
by  the  intercessions  of  Pope  Alexander  VI  and  the  King  of 
Hungary  (1503).  The  succession  of  Vassili  Ivanovitch,  in 
1505,  brought  no  cessation  to  the  internal  troubles  of  the 
empire  until  he  was  banished  to  a  monastery,  being  accused 
of  heresy  and  of  false  interpretation  of  the  sacred  books. 
Throughout  the  reign  of  Ivan  IV  the  country  was  torn  by 
contending  factions,  the  principal  warlike  event  of  his  reign 
being  the  siege  and  reduction  of  the  City  of  Kazan,  in  which 
the  Tartar  population  was  literally  exterminated.  During 
his  reign  the  Russian  Aristocracy  were  special  victims  of  his 
fury.  Against  this  class  he  continually  waged  a  war  of 
cruelty,  destroying  his  enemies  indiscriminately,  and  subse- 
quently asking  the  prayers  of  the  Church  for  his  victims. 
He  died  in  1534,  and  was  succeeded  by  Ivan  the  Terrible, 
who  took  the  title  of  Tzar,  and  whose  reign  marked  the  in- 
troduction of  printing  in  Russia,  besides  the  expulsion  of  the 
Tartars  and  the  waging  of  various  foreign  wars. 

Ivan  the  Terrible  was  succeeded  by  Feodor  Ivanovitch 
(1584),  who  shortly  after  his  elevation  found  himself  at  war 
with  both  Sweden  and  Poland.  The  Poles  refused  to  ac- 
cept any  monarch  who  was  not  a  Catholic,  and  having  chosen 


174  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

Sigismond,  son  of  the  King  of  Sweden,  as  their  ruler,  Russia 
at  once  declared  war.  This  war  resulted  disastrously  to  both 
Russia  and  Poland,  as  the  latter  practically  lost  her  nation- 
ality, while  Sweden  elected  Charles  Vasa  as  her  ruler.  Feodor 
was  succeeded  by  Boris  Godounof  (1598),  whose  reign  was 
marked  by  a  war  with  Sweden  in  which  Russia  recaptured 
all  that  had  been  taken  from  Ivan  the  Terrible — lam,  Ivan- 
gorod  and  Kaporie;  also  by  the  successful  efforts  made  by 
Boris  to  conciliate  and  obtain  the  favor  of  England.  An 
edict  of  his  forbidding  peasants  to  go  from  one  estate  to  an- 
other practically  bound  the  peasants  to  the  soil  and  laid  the 
foundation  for  bitterness  and  revolution.  Upon  his  death, 
in  1605,  Demitri,  the  Pretender  (the  real  Demitri  had  been 
murdered,  it  was  believed,  by  Boris,  a  runaway  monk),  as- 
cended the  throne.  His  real  name  was  Gregory  Otrepief, 
and  he  was  assassinated  in  1613,  after  a  reign  remarkable  for 
naught  save  the  sway  of  deceit  and  dishonor.  Then  fol- 
lowed the  election  of  Michael  Romanof  (1613)  and  the 
foundation  of  the  Russian  royal  family  of  that  name.  Under 
his  regime  the  war  with  Sweden  was  brought  to  a  close,  and 
Russia,  emerging  from  her  centuries  of  internal  turmoils, 
became  a  European  nation.  Peace  reigned  for  a  period  of 
eight  years,  at  the  conclusion  of  which  a  holy  war  was  de- 
clared by  Turkey.  Cossacks  of  the  Don  surprised  and  cap- 
tured the  City  of  Azof  and  offered  it  as  a  gift  to  the  Tzar 
of  Moscow,  who  declined  to  accept  it  and  ordered  its  de- 
struction. Upon  the  death  of  the  first  of  the  Romanofs, 
Alexis  Mikhailovitch  ascended  the  throne  in  1645.  The 
same  year  the  breaking  out  of  the  Fronds  in  France  (1648) 
was  followed  by  the  outbreak  of  a  terrible  revolt  in 
Moscow,  which  defied  the  efforts  of  the  army  and  was  only 
quelled  when  the  Tzar  granted  every  concession  demanded 
by  those  in  the  uprising.     Rebellion  broke  out  in  Eastern 


THE  RISE  OF  RUSSIA  175 

Russia  in  1668,  the  forces  in  revolt  being  led  by  Stenko  Ra- 
zine,  a  Cossack  of  the  Don.  It  was  a  war  of  the  Tartars, 
Tchouvaches,  Mordvians  and  Tcheremisses,,  against  the 
domination  of  Russia,  and  ended  only  by  the  defeat  of  Ra- 
zine  in  1671.  Razine  was  executed  that  year  at  Moscow. 
The  reign  of  this  Tzar  Alexis,  father  of  Peter  the  Great, 
marked  the  first  efforts  towards  genuine  reform  in  Russia. 
Alexis  encouraged  education,  united  the  various  religious 
schisms,  and  founded  the  Russian  church.  A  religious  re- 
volt took  place  among  the  monasteries  of  the  White  Sea, 
where  the  monks,  attached  to  their  ancient  customs,  fortified 
the  convent  of  Solovetski,  and  were  only  dislodged  after  a 
siege  of  eight  years.  It  was  then  taken  by  assault  and  the 
rebels  hung.  Alexis  had  by  his  first  wife,  Maria  Miloslavski, 
two  sons  (Feodor  and  Ivan)  and  six  daughters,  and  by  his 
second  wife,  Natalia  Narychkim,  one  son  (Peter  the  Great) 
and  two  daughters.  As  the  kinsmen  of  each  wife  surrounded 
the  throne,  on  the  death  of  Feodor  (1682),  there  were  two 
factions  contending  for  the  succession. 

The  regency  of  Sophia,  eldest  daughter  of  Alexis,  was 
marked  by  many  stirring  events,  chief  among  them  being  the 
revolt  of  the  people  of  Moscow,  who,  believing  that  Ivan,  the 
son  of  Alexis,  had  been  murdered,  stoned  the  Kremlin,  and, 
after  they  had  ascertained  that  the  stories  of  Ivan's  death 
were  not  true,  wreaked  their  vengeance  by  committing  many 
outrages.  The  result  was  that  Sophia  triumphed  and  reigned 
in  the  name  of  her  two  sons,  Ivan,  a  half-witted  youth,  and 
Peter.  In  1689  she  dispatched  an  army  of  150,000  men  to 
the  Crimea  to  evercome  the  Ottoman  forces  in  that  country. 
Two  expeditions  were  undertaken,  both  of  which  were  un- 
successful. 

Peter,  then  a  young  boy,  quarreled  with  his  mother;  the 
Tzarina,  and  through  the  assistance  of  the  advanced  think- 


17G  WAR    OR   A    UNITKD    WORLD 

ers,  who  supported  his  cause,  the  Tzarina's  chief  advisers 
were  disgraced  or  executed,  and  Sophia  was  confined  in  a 
monastery,  where  she  remained  until  her  death,  Peter  taking 
the  throne.  In  1697  Peter  suppressed  a  revolt  of  the  Streltsi, 
or  national  guard,  and  soon  after  his  return  to  Russia  from 
a  trip  through  Europe  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  at  first 
hand  the  knowledge  necessary  to  develop  his  empire,  caused 
a  thousand  to  be  executed,  cutting  off  five  heads  himself. 
On  his  return  to  Russia,  he  began  at  once  to  set  on  foot  the 
policy  of  seeking  in  every  direction  an  outlet  into  ice-free 
seas,  and  selected  the  Black  Sea  as  the  most  available  for  a 
first  move.  He  secured  for  Russia  access  to  the  Black  Sea 
on  the  south,  and  determined  to  dispute  with  Sweden  for 
possession  of  the  Baltic  Sea  on  the  north.  It  should  be  re- 
membered that  Finland,  Carelia,  Ingria,  Esthonia  and  other 
districts  east  of  the  Baltic  at  this  time  all  belonged  to  Swe- 
den, and  the  possession  of  Pomerania,  Rugen  and  Bremen 
made  her  one  of  the  most  important  members  of  the  German 
Empire.  Russia  was  comparatively  of  small  area  and  in- 
fluence at  this  time.  Peter  made  an  alliance  with  Denmark 
and  Poland  and  declared  war,  but  his  forces  were  defeated 
by  the  Swedish  army  under  Charles  XII  at  Narva  on  No- 
vember 30, 1700.  In  1703  Peter  seized  the  Swedish  fortress 
of  Nyonschanz,  near  the  mouth  of  the  Neva,  and  there  laid 
the  foundation  of  the  new  capital,  Saint  Petersburg,  now 
called  Petrograd.  During  the  following  six  years  his  armies 
were  defeated  by  the  Swedes,  until,  in  1709,  Charles  XII 
rashly  invaded  Russia,  and  his  army  was  disastrously  re- 
pulsed and  cut  to  pieces  at  Pultowa.  There  the  Swedish 
king  confronted  an  entirely  different  force  from  the  army  he 
had  routed  at  Narva  six  years  before.  Peter  had  disbanded 
the  old  regular  army  of  the  empire,  the  Strelitzes,  and  had 
employed  foreign  officers  to  instruct  and  drill  his  new  army. 


THE  RISE  OF  RUSSIA  177 

Charles  XII  had  traversed  Poland,  being  uniformly  success- 
ful in  all  his  campaigns  until  he  arrived  on  the  confines  of 
Lithuania,  within  ten  days'  march  of  the  Russian  frontier, 
before  which  time  the  Tzar,  alarmed  at  his  approach,  had 
made  him  proposals  of  peace.  In  October,  1708,  the  Swed- 
ish army,  under  General  Lewenhaupt,  met  with  a  decided 
repulse  near  the  Borysthenes,  losing  upwards  of  8,000  men 
and  all  its  cannon  and  ammunition,  as  well  as  all  the  provis- 
ions trains  on  which  Charles  and  his  starving  army  were  re- 
lying. The  Swedish  forces  went  into  winter  quarters  in  the 
Ukraine,  but,  in  the  spring  of  1709,  moved  forward  toward 
Moscow  and  invested  the  fortified  town  of  Pultowa,  on  the 
River  Vorksea,  a  place  where  the  Tzar  had  located  large 
supplies  of  provisions  and  military  stores.  This  position 
commanded  the  passes  leading  toward  Moscow.  A  general 
engagement  was  inevitable,  and  in  this  battle  the  Russians, 
after  two  hours  of  desperate  fighting,  broke  the  Swedish 
lines  and  compelled  the  army  of  Charles  to  retire,  with  a  loss 
of  nearly  10,000  killed  and  wounded.  A  few  survivors  of 
the  rout,  Charles  among  the  number,  swam  the  Borysthenes 
river  and  escaped  into  Turkish  territory. 

The  victory  at  Pultowa  was  the  turning  point  in  Russian 
ascendency.  Russia  wrested  from  Sweden  more  than  half 
her  possessions ;  from  Turkey  in  Europe,  territory  equal  to 
Prussia ;  from  Turkey  in  Asia,  an  area  equal  to  the  smaller 
states  of  Germany,  the  Rhenish  provinces  of  Prussia,  Bel- 
gium and  Holland ;  from  Persia,  an  extent  equal  to  that  of 
England,  and  for  Tartary  a  territory  equal  to  European 
Turkey,  Greece,  Italy  and  Spain. 

During  the  war  for  the  succession  of  Poland  (1733-1735), 
during  the  reign  of  Catherine  I,  Russia  could  not  be  moved 
from  her  object  to  remain  mistress  of  Poland  and  Courland. 
Severe  fighting  took  place  in  Dantzig.    Stanislaus,  who  had 


178  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

secretly  gained  the  captial  and  been  declared  King  of  Po- 
land, was  forced  to  flee,  and,  notwithstanding  the  aid  of  the 
French,  the  Russians  were  everywhere  victorious. 

Following  this  war,  the  French  aroused  the  animosity  of 
the  Electors  of  Cologne,  Mayence,  Bavaria  and  the  Palatin- 
ate, took  Kehl  and  other  fortified  cities,  and  deprived  Aus- 
tria of  the  Duchy  of  Parma  and  the  Kingdom  of  Naples.  By 
virtue  of  the  treaty  of  alliance  of  1726,  the  Austrian  em- 
peror demanded  help  of  the  Tzarina,  and  General  Lascy 
marched  20,000  men  across  Silesia,  Bohemia  and  Franconia, 
displaying  for  the  first  time  a  Russian  army  in  Western 
Germany.  After  he  had  joined  forces  with  the  Austrians 
within  two  miles  of  the  French  outposts  near  Heidelberg, 
hostilities  were  prevented  by  the  Peace  of  Vienna,  and  the 
Russian  troops  withdrew. 

A  campaign  against  the  Turks  in  1736  by  a  Russian  army 
led  by  Lascy  resulted  in  great  devastation  in  the  eastern 
part  of  the  peninsula.  The  latter  pillaged  the  capital  of  the 
Khans,  and  laid  waste  the  Crimea  in  such  a  manner  that  the 
country  never  recovered.  The  war  resulted  in  the  cession  by 
Austria  to  Turkey  of  the  provinces  of  Servia,  Orsova  and 
Wallachia,  the  Russians  receiving  as  their  share  a  tongue 
of  land  between  the  Bug  and  Dnieper  rivers. 

In  October,  1741,  Elizabeth  Petrovna,  daughter  of  Peter 
the  Great,  was,  by  the  assistance  of  many  who  opposed  the 
reign  of  the  incapable  Anna  Ivanovo  and  regency  of  the  in- 
different Anne  Leopoldavna,  put  forward  as  candidate  for 
the  throne.  In  this  they  were  successful,  most  of  the  friends 
of  Anne  being  arrested  and  punished  according  to  the  cruel 
barbarous  methods  then  in  vogue  in  Russia. 

The  war  of  1741-43  with  Sweden,  brought  on  by  that 
country  in  its  efforts  to  secure  the  territory  taken  from  them 
by  Peter  the  Great,  was  soon  ended.     The  Scandinavians 


THE  RISE  OF  RUSSIA  179 

failed  to  show  the  prowess  of  former  years.  The  Russian 
generals,  Lascy  and  Keith,  captured  all  the  Finnish  forts, 
while  at  Helsingfors,  17,000  Swedes  laying  down  their  arms 
to  an  inferior  force  of  Russians.  By  the  treaty  of  Abo  the 
empress  acquired  South  Finland  as  far  as  the  River  Kin- 
men,  and  forced  the  election  of  Adolphus  Frederick,  admin- 
istrator of  the  Duchy  of  Holstein,  as  Prince  Royal  of  Swe- 
den, in  place  of  the  native  prince. 

The  war  of  the  Austrian  succession  broke  out  previous  to 
1746.  For  many  months  Russian  diplomats  were  undecided 
as  to  which  side  should  be  supported,  but  in  the  year  men- 
tioned an  Austro-Russian  treaty  of  alliance  was  concluded. 
In  1748  Russia  took  active  measures  to  support  her  ally, 
when  30,000  troops  were  marched  across  Germany,  under 
General  Repnin,  and  took  their  positions  on  the  Rhine. 
This  served  to  hasten  the  peace  of  Aix-la-Chapelle  (1748), 
after  the  conclusion  of  which  the  army  returned  to  Russia 
without  firing  a  shot  or  risking  the  prestige  of  the  empire. 

The  hatred  of  Empress  Elizabeth  for  Frederick  the  Great 
of  Prussia  was  very  pronounced.  There  was,  perhaps,  suf- 
ficient reason  for  the  lady's  sentiment  towards  the  emperor, 
who  did  not  spare  epigrams  about  her.  This  personal  feel- 
ing, continued  for  a  number  of  years,  added  to  other  things, 
led  finally  to  a  diplomatic  rupture.  Partially  as  the  result 
of  a  series  of  intrigues,  Russia  finally  found  herself  an  ally 
of  France.  In  1758  the  Russians,  under  General  Fermor, 
again  invaded  the  Prussian  states,  took  Konigsberg,  and 
bombarded  Kustria  on  the  Oder.  In  a  series  of  engage- 
ments, ending  with  the  contest  near  Zorndorf ,  Frederick  re- 
pelled the  Russian  "barbarians,"  as  he  was  wont  to  refer  to 
the  soldiers  of  the  empress.  In  the  following  year,  Soltykof , 
Fermor's  successor,  crossed  the  Oder  with  a  Russian  army, 
defeated    the    Prussians    at    Paltzig    near    Zullichau,    and 


180  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

marched  without  further  hindrance  into  the  city  of  Frank- 
fort. Frederick  came  to  the  assistance  of  his  allies  with  a 
force  of  48,000  men.  He  met  the  Russians  near  Kuners- 
dorf,  where  he  suffered  defeat,  losing  all  but  3,000  of  his 
army.  Frederick  acknowledged  that  he  saw  defeat  in  the  end, 
and  made  overtures  for  peace.  The  Russian  empress  de- 
clined to  entertain  proposals  for  peace  until  she  had  "re- 
duced the  forces"  of  Frederick  and  secured  the  annexation 
of  eastern  Prussia.  In  1760,  the  Russians  entered  Berlin, 
pillaged  the  state  coffers  and  arsenals  and  destroyed  the 
manufactories  of  arms  and  powder.  The  following  year 
they  conquered  Pomerania  and  captured  the  stronghold  of 
Kolberg.  It  may  be  said  that  but  for  the  sudden  death  of 
Elizabeth,  Frederick  would  in  all  probability  have  lost  most, 
if  not  all,  of  his  provinces.  Under  the  reign  of  Elizabeth, 
Russia  made  great  progress  in  the  arts  and  sciences,  and 
also  improved  the  morals  and  efficiency  of  her  army. 

The  short  reign  of  Peter  III  (1762),  Duke  of  Holstein 
and  admirer  of  Frederick  the  Great,  was  unmarked  by  the 
turmoil  of  war.  Six  months  after  his  accession  to  power 
he  was  dethroned,  and  shortly  thereafter  strangled  by  Greg- 
ory Orlof,  lover  of  the  queen,  and  the  latter  was  proclaimed 
ruler  of  all  the  Russias,  with  the  title  of  Catherine  II. 

During  the  first  five  years  of  her  reign  Catherine  II  pros- 
ecuted her  plans  for  the  final  dismemberment  of  Poland,  and 
in  1768  a  treaty  was  made  between  Poland  and  Russia  by 
virtue  of  which  the  constitution  of  the  former,  largely  the 
work  of  Russian  diplomats,  could  never  be  modified  without 
the  consent  of  the  latter  power.  This  was  to  legalize  foreign 
interventions  and  to  nullify  the  growth  of  Poland.  No 
sooner  was  this  compact  perfected  than  the  Russian  troops 
evacuated  Warsaw,  and  the  other  powers,  parties  to  the 
scheme,  sent  deputies  to  thank  the  empress.     But  peace  did 


THE  RISE  OF  RUSSIA  181 

not  result.  Confederations  of  Poles  were  formed  at  Bar 
in  Podolia,  in  Galicia  and  Lublin.  Agitation  prevailed 
throughout  the  country,  the  result  being  that  Poland  found 
herself  forced  to  commit  an  additional  mistake.  With  a 
royal  army  numbering  less  than  10,000  men,  application  un- 
der the  treaty  was  made  to  Russia  for  aid.  A  savage  war 
followed,  at  once  national,  religious  and  social,  which  deso- 
lated the  provinces  of  the  Dnieper.  The  landowners  and 
Jews  saw  the  return  of  the  bloody  days  of  Khmelnitski.  The 
massacre  of  Ouman,  a  town  belonging  to  Count  Potocki, 
horrified  all  Europe.  In  the  end,  however,  the  Russian 
troops  were  victorious  over  the  Polish  patriots. 

These  events  were  succeeded  by  the  first  war  with  Turkey 
(1767-74).  At  the  instigation  of  France,  Turkey  declared 
war  against  Russia.  General  Galitsyne,  with  30,000  men, 
defeated  the  Grand  Vizier,  with  a  force  of  100,000,  on  the 
Dnieper,  near  Khotin.  In  1770,  his  successor,  General  Rou- 
anstof,  defeated  the  Khan  of  the  Tartars,  with  100,000 
men,  and  followed  this  with  a  victory  over  the  Grand  Vizier 
at  Kagoul,  where  150,000  Turks  were  defeated  by  17,000 
Russians.  In  1771  Prince  Dolgourki  forced  the  lines  of 
Perekop,  ravaged  the  Crimea,  proceeded  to  Kafifa,  Keortch 
and  Ienikale,  and  put  an  end  forever  to  Turkish  rule  in  the 
peninsula.  The  previous  year  a  Russian  fleet  had  sailed  out 
of  the  Baltic,  made  the  tour  of  Europe,  and,  appearing  on 
the  coast  of  Greece,  overcame  the  Turkish  fleet  in  the  harbor 
of  Chios,  conquered  Azof,  the  Crimea,  and  gained  control  of 
the  shore  of  the  Black  Sea  between  the  Dnieper  and  the 
Dniester,  Bessarabia,  Wallachia,  Neoldovia,  a  part  of  Bul- 
garia and  the  islands  of  the  Archipelago.  Russia  would  will- 
ingly have  kept  her  conquests,  but  Austria  took  fright  at  her 
close  neighborhood  and  raised  opposition.     It  was  at  this 


182  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

point  that  the  Turkish  and  Polish  question  crossed ;  Poland 
was  made  to  serve  as  the  ransom  of  Turkey. 

The  proposition  to  dismember  Poland  was  suggested  to 
Catharine  II  by  Frederick  of  Prussia,  who  sent  his  brother, 
Prince  Henry,  to  St.  Petersburg  to  gain  over  the  empress. 
The  prince  succeeded  in  presenting  the  question  so  forcibly 
that  Catherine,  who,  realizing  that  she  could  not  fight  both 
Austria  and  Prussia  at  the  same  time,  was  finally  forced  to 
submit  to  the  proposal  of  Frederick  II.  The  partition  was 
formally  legalized  by  the  treaty  of  February,  1771,  between 
Prussia  and  Russia,  and  accepted  by  Austria  in  September 
following. 

This  compact  rendered  the  settlement  of  Russia's  differ- 
ences with  the  Porte  comparatively  easy.  The  Russian  army 
at  this  moment  had  the  forces  of  the  Grand  Vizier  sur- 
rounded at  Shumla,  in  a  position  where  Turkish  defeat 
might  open  the  way  to  Constantinople.  Sultan  Abdul  Hamid 
therefore  consented  to  sign  the  Peace  of  Koutchouk-Kair- 
nadji  (1174). 

Affairs  in  Sweden  soon  after  attracted  the  attention  of 
the  powers.  Gustavus  III,  while  still  prince  royal,  visited 
Paris,  associated  himself  closely  with  the  aristocratic  circles 
of  France,  and,  being  recalled  by  the  death  of  his  father,  re- 
turned to  Sweden,  determined  to  re-establish  the  royal 
power,  with  the  hope  of  securing  the  independence  of  the 
country.  He  then  prepared  his  coup  d'etat  with  the  utmost 
secrecy,  having  already  gained  the  support  of  the  nation,  in- 
cluding the  army.  On  August  19,  1772,  he  overthrew  the 
assembly  and  imposed  on  the  Diet  a  new  constitution,  which 
guaranteed  the  public  liberties,  at  the  same  time  restoring 
to  the  crown  its  essential  prerogatives.  The  revolution,  ac- 
complished without  bloodshed,  put  Sweden  beyond  the  power 
of  foreign  intrigue,  and  caused  great  mortification  to  Fred- 


THE  RISE  OF  RUSSIA  183 

erick  and  Catherine,  neither  of  whom  was  in  position  to  in- 
terfere, because  of  the  condition  of  Poland. 

Following  the  terrible  plague  at  Moscow,  during  the  sum- 
mer of  1771,  and  the  fright  caused  thereby  in  the  minds  of 
superstitious  people,  the  city  was  terrorized  by  destructive 
and  frenzied  mobs.  Much  damage  was  done,  but,  the  plague 
subsiding,  peace  was  restored,  though  the  result  of  this  re- 
volt in  Moscow  was  soon  apparent  in  several  of  the  prov- 
inces. Prejudiced  against  being  ruled  by  women,  the  igno- 
rant peasants  accepted  the  leadership  of  imposters,  and 
finally  selected  Emilian  Pougatchef,  a  Cossack  deserter  and 
outlaw,  to  lead  them  in  an  insurrection  against  the  empress. 
A  race  war,  having  the  dangerous  elements  of  social  dis- 
tinction, began  in  the  basin  of  the  Volga.  Entire  districts 
were  desolated  by  the  revolutionists,  who  destroyed  several 
of  the  most  prosperous  cities  in  the  south.  Pougatchef  was 
finally  captured  and  brought  to  Moscow,  where  he  was  be- 
headed. 

In  1787  conditions  indicated  that  war  with  Turkey  was 
to  be  expected.  In  the  midst  of  her  preparations  to  com- 
bat the  Ottoman  government,  Catharine  received  the  ulti- 
matum of  Turkey,  demanding  the  recall  of  Russian  Consuls 
from  Jassy,  Bucharest  and  Alexandria;  abandonment  of 
the  protectorate  over  Heraclius,  vassal  of  the  Sultan;  the 
right  of  the  Turks  to  inspect  all  Russian  vessels  navigating 
the  straits,  and  the  admission  of  Turkish  Consuls  into  the 
ports  of  Russian  territory.  On  the  refusal  of  these  de- 
mands, the  Porte  declared  a  war,  which  raged  during  the 
succeeding  five  years.  In  1788  Catherine  had  40,000  men 
to  protect  the  Caucasus;  30,000  to  defend  the  Crimea,  and 
70,000  under  Roumantsof  to  operate  on  the  Dniester,  while 
80,000  Austrians,  under  Joseph  II,  were  on  the  line  of  the 
Danube  and  the  Save.     The  Austrians  were  driven  beyond 


184  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

the  Save  and  were  defeated  at  Temesvar,  when  the  Em- 
peror resigned  his  command  to  Laudon.  The  war  continued 
with  unabated  fury.  In  1790,  Catherine,  following  the 
storming  and  capture  of  the  fortress  of  Ismail,  the  strong- 
est in  Turkey,  learned  of  the  death  of  Joseph  II  and  the 
succession  of  Leopold  II,  who  signed  a  peace  at  Sistova 
(1791),  but  continued  the  war  for  several  months  till  the 
fall  of  Akkerman  and  Kilia.  General  Repnin,  with  40,000 
men,  defeated  the  Grand  Vizier,  with  100,000,  at  Matchin, 
and  the  Grand  Vizier's  communications  with  Constanti- 
nople were  destroyed.  The  Sultan  implored  peace,  the 
Turks,  however,  escaping  expulsion  into  Asia,  a  fate  which 
they  anticipated. 

Actual  hostilities  between  Russia  and  Poland,  following 
the  efforts  of  the  latter  country  to  avoid  war,  did  not  actu- 
ally begin  until  April  17,  1791,  when  the  tocsin  sounded  in 
all  directions  and  the  insurrection  led  by  Thaddeus  Kos- 
ciuszko  broke  out.  King  Stanislaus  remained  in  his  palace, 
taking  no  part  in  the  uprising.  Varying  success  followed 
the  efforts  of  the  Polish  generals,  but  when  Kosciuszko  was 
disabled  and  taken  from  the  field  on  the  Vistula,  his  suc- 
cessor Varrjevski  retreated  to  Praga,  which  was  hastily  for- 
tified to  resist  the  oncoming  victorious  Russians.  At  3 
o'clock  on  the  morning  of  November  4th,  1794,  the  assault 
began.  The  ramparts  were  speedily  scaled,  and  Praga  was 
within  two  hours  the  scene  of  one  of  the  most  bloody  en- 
counters in  all  history.  The  Russian  General  Souvorof 
pleaded  in  vain  for  quarter  for  the  vanquished.  The  sol- 
diers, exasperated  against  the  Poles,  whom  they  believed  to 
be  atheists  and  accomplices  of  the  French  Jacobins,  mur- 
derers of  their  comrades,  disarmed  in  the  revolt  of  April 
17th,  cut  down  without  mercy  the  entire  Polish  Army.  The 
dead  numbered  12,000,  the  prisoners  only  one.     Souvorof 


THE  RISE  OF  RUSSIA  185 

was  made  Field  Marshal  by  the  Empress.  In  the  partition 
which  followed,  Russia  took  the  rest  of  Lithuania  as  far 
as  the  Niemen,  and  the  rest  of  Volhynia  to  the  Bug,  and 
finally  acquired  Courland  and  Samogitia.  But  notwith- 
standing this  overwhelming  victory,  and  defeat  of  their 
cherished  ambition  for  a  reunited  country,  the  Poles  re- 
mained undaunted. 

Catherine  had  been  really  more  useful  to  France  than  to 
the  coalition — and  this  despite  of  her  own  wishes.  Prussia 
and  Austria  had  both  become  suspicious  of  her  because  of 
her  intervention  in  Poland  and  her  projects  in  the  east. 
But  she  played  one  country  against  the  other ;  made  the  sec- 
ond partition  of  Poland  with  Frederick  William  in  spite  of 
Austria;  and  effected  the  third  partition  with  Francis  II  of 
Austria,  to  the  disgust  of  Prussia.  When  she  died,  in  No- 
vember, 1796,  the  frontiers  of  Russia  had  been  extended 
more  than  by  any  previous  sovereign  since  the  term  of  Ivan 
the  Terrible.  She  had  gained  the  boundaries  of  the  Nie- 
men, the  Dniester,  and  the  Black  Sea. 

Paul  I,  upon  his  succession  to  the  throne,  on  November 
17,  1796,  was  forty-two  years  of  age.  He  was  a  man  of 
some  natural  ability,  but  a  despot  at  heart,  and  had  always 
been  eccentric,  and  had  constantly  acted  in  opposition  to  his 
mother. 

Questioned  by  the  Austrians  on  his  passage  to  Vienna  as 
to  his  orders,  Suvoroff  showed  them  a  blank  paper  signed 
by  the  Emperor  Paul.  His  military  formulae,  given  to  his 
soldiers,  was :  "A  sudden  glance,  rapidity,  impetuosity !  The 
van  of  the  army  is  not  to  wait  for  the  rear!  Musket  balls 
are  fools;  bayonets  do  the  business;  the  French  beat  the 
Austrians  in  columns,  and  we  will  beat  them  in  columns!" 

Beginning  with  the  autumn  of  1798,  Europe  was  again 
racked  by  a  warlike  combination,  destined  to  change  the 


186  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORIJD 

map  of  the  entire  continent.  Owing  to  its  seizure  of  the 
Ionian  Islands,  the  French  Directory  found  itself  suddenly- 
confronted  by  a  coalition  including  Italy,  Switzerland,  Hol- 
land and  Naples,  soon  to  be  augmented  by  the  forces  of 
England  and  Russia. 

Suvoroff,  the  Russian  commander,  assumed  command  of 
the  allied  forces,  the  Austro-Russians  outnumbering  the 
French  under  Moreau  more  than  three  to  one.  Souvorof 
crossed  the  River  Adda,  penetrated  the  center  of  Moreau, 
and  surrounded  the  right  wing  of  his  army,  capturing  about 
3,000  prisoners.  Forcing  Moreau  into  the  Alps  for  refuge, 
Suvoroff  entered  Milan  amidst  the  acclamation  of  the  no- 
bles, priests  and  excited  populace,  of  all  the  enemies  of  the 
revolution,  and  immediately  abolished  the  Cisalpine  Re- 
public. 

After  defeating  the  Austrians  on  the  Tidona,  the  French 
Marshal  McDonald,  at  the  head  of  the  army  of  Naples,  came 
up  with  Suvoroff  on  the  Trebbia.  A  fierce  engagement  en- 
sued, each  army  losing  about  twelve  thousand  men,  when 
McDonald  rejoined  Moreau  in  the  gorges  of  the  Alps.  In 
the  latter  part  of  July,  1799,  the  Directorate  made  and  lost 
its  contest  to  recover  Italy.  Quarrels  arose  in  the  ranks  of 
the  allies,  resulting  in  the  separation  of  the  Russians  and 
Austrians,  the  latter  not  being  able  to  endure  the  vanity  of 
Suvoroff.  The  result  was  that  Suvoroff  took  command 
of  a  force  dispatched  to  defend  the  mountains  of  Helvetia. 
Marshal  Massena  was  quietly  waiting  with  a  force  of  60,- 
000  men  on  the  heights  of  Albis,  for  an  opportunity  to 
strike  Suvoroff.  September  25  he  surprised  the  passage 
of  the  Linimat,  near  Dietiken,  and  cut  the  Russian  Army  in 
two.  The  battle  continued  all  the  next  day,  when  the  Rus- 
sians fell  back  on  Zurich,  leaving  the  field  covered  with 
dead  and  wounded.     They  had  lost  6,000  men,  their  guns, 


THE  RISE  OF  RUSSIA  187 

the  army  treasure,  official  papers,  and  sacred  plate.  Then 
Marshal  Oudinot  attacked  Zurich,  the  Swiss  legion,  and 
took  all  the  Russian  stores  and  baggage. 

Suvoroff,  forced  to  retreat,  was  compelled  to  take  his 
army  over  the  St.  Gotthard  Pass,  during  which  march  his 
men  suffered  great  hardships,  reaching  Multenthal  on  the 
26th  of  September,  after  losing  2,000  of  his  army.  In  his 
retreat  he  successfully  made  the  passage  across  Mont  Bragel 
in  the  deep  snow  and  intense  cold,  and,  with  the  remnant  of 
his  army,  went  into  winter  quarters  between  the  Iller  and 
the  Lech  rivers. 

During  the  short  alliance  between  Paul  and  Napoleon,  the 
former,  having  broken  with  England  owing  to  the  fact  that 
the  latter  would  not  recognize  him  as  Grand  Master  of 
Malta  and  owner  of  the  island,  a  Russo-French  expedition 
was  planned  to  conquer  British  India. 

The  death  of  Emperor  Paul  (March  23,  1801),  and  the 
ascension  of  Alexander  I  were  followed  immediately  by  the 
series  of  contests  in  which  Napoleon  as  First  Consul  of 
France,  and  afterwards  Emperor,  practically  disrupted  all 
of  Europe,  and  made  himself  dictator  of  the  policies 
of  the  powers.  Alexander,  the  new  Russian  Czar, 
made  unsuccessful  efforts  to  bring  about  peace  between  the 
warring  nations  of  the  continent,  having  in  view,  however, 
the  domination  of  Russia  so  far  as  concerned  the  control  of 
Poland,  the  Dardanelles,  and  Sweden.  In  his  demands  in 
favor  of  Sardinia,  the  Emperor  did  not  feel  that  he  had  the 
support  of  England.  On  October  8,  1801,  a  treaty  was 
signed  between  France  and  Russia,  followed  by  the  adoption, 
on  October  11,  of  the  following  articles:  1 — Mediation  for 
the  German  indemnities  stipulated  by  the  peace  of  Lune- 
ville.  2 — An  agreement  regarding  Italian  affairs.  3 — 
Mediation  of  Russia  for  peace  between  France  and  Turkey. 


188  WAR    OR    A    UNITED    WORLD 

4 — Evacuation  by  the  French  of  the  territory  of  Naples. 
5 — Indemnity  of  Sardinia.  6 — Indemnity  to  sovereigns  of 
Bavaria,  Wurtemberg  and  Baden.  7 — The  independence 
of  the  Ionian  islands.  In  all  these  affairs  the  will  of 
France  predominated.  Here  followed  more  or  less  diplo- 
matic intrigue  preceding  the  execution  of  the  Due  d'Enghien, 
owing  to  the  increased  misunderstanding  between  the 
French  and  Russian  cabinet.  Because  of  this  event, 
Hedouville,  the  French  Ambassador  at  St.  Petersburg, 
found  himself  persona  non  grata  at  the  Russian  Court. 
The  French  government  was  presented  with  a  note  protest- 
ing against  the  violation  of  international  law.  A  similar 
note  was  laid  before  the  Diet  at  Ratisbon,  which  Sweden  and 
England  hastened  to  ratify.  The  French  Minister  was  re- 
called. France  replied  with  an  insulting  letter  to  the  cor- 
respondence implying  Russia's  right  to  interfere  in  the  af- 
fairs of  Germany,  and,  as  a  result,  all  diplomatic  relations 
were  broken  off.  Napoleon  had  just  been  crowned  Em- 
peror; had  taken  the  crown  of  Italy,  united  Genoa  to  the 
French  territory,  and  modified  the  constitution  of  Holland. 
He  had  threatened  England,  and  was  preparing  for  its  in- 
vasion, when  the  coalition  against  him  became  public.  Brit- 
ain entered  the  list  against  him,  followed  by  Sweden  and 
Naples ;  Austria  attacked  Bavaria,  the  ally  of  Napoleon,  and 
war  became  inevitable.  Alexander,  following  the  violation 
of  the  territory  of  Anspach  and  Baireuth,  held  his  famous 
interview,  near  the  tomb  of  Frederick  the  Great,  with  the 
King  and  Queen  of  Prussia,  followed  by  the  treaty  of  Pots- 
dam, Prussia  undertaking  to  furnish  80,000  soldiers,  pro- 
vided Napoleon  did  not  accept  this  ultimatum,  which  stip- 
ulated the  independence  of  Germany  and  Italy  and  pay- 
ment of  an  indemnity  to  the  King  of  Sardinia. 

During  the  negotiations  the  Russian    army  was    being 


THE  RISE  OF  RUSSIA  189 

mobilized.  Beside  the  three  Austrian  armies  in  Italy,  the 
Tyrol  and  Bavaria,  there  were  put  in  motion  20,000  men 
under  Tolstoi,  20,000  under  Admiral  Seniavine,  who  were 
to  join  the  English  at  Naples,  and  the  great  army  of  Ger- 
many, consisting  of  45,000,  hastening  to  the  river  Inn,  to 
unite  with  Mack,  the  force  including  all  the  Imperial  Guards, 
the  flower  of  the  army.  General  Koutovzof  had  reached 
Braunau,  on  the  Inn,  when  the  news  reached  him  of  the 
capitulation  of  Ulm,  and  the  annihilation  of  Mack's  army. 
To  escape  being  cut  off  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Danube  by 
Murat's  cavalry,  and  on  the  left  bank  by  the  corps  of  Mon- 
tier,  Koutovzof  retreated,  giving  battle  to  Oudinot  at  Laue- 
back  in  Amstettin.  He  then  crossed  the  Danube  at  Krems, 
fought  the  battle  of  Dirnstein  with  Mortier,  and  marched 
north  to  join  the  great  Russian  Army.  A  surprise  at  the 
bridge  of  Vienna  by  Lannes  and  Murat  endangered  his  left 
flank,  when  he  found  that  in  order  to  save  his  army  his 
rear  guard  must  be  sacrificed.  He  entrenched  himself  at 
Hollabrunn.  Murat  came  up  first.  He  wished  to  gain 
time  in  order  to  allow  Lannes  to  join  him  and  granted  an 
armistice,  but  Napoleon,  incensed  at  the  delay,  ordered  an 
immediate  attack.  A  desperate  engagement  of  twelve  hours' 
duration  followed,  when  under  cover  of  night  the  Russian 
army  retreated,  having  lost  2,000  men  and  all  its  guns. 
The  Russian  and  Austrian  troops  numbering  80,000  men 
were  concentrated  at  Olmutz,  while  Napoleon,  with  70,000 
men,  was  concentrating  at  Brunn. 

But  in  the  battle  of  Austerlitz  the  Russians  were  defeated 
and  forced  to  retreat.  On  December  4,  after  an  audience 
with  the  emperor,  Napoleon  allowed  the  Russian  army  to 
retire,  on  condition  that  it  was  to  return  to  Russia  by  stages, 
its  progress  to  be  regulated  by  himself.  On  the  26th  the 
Treaty  of  Presburg  was  signed,  under  which  Francis  II  of 


190  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

Austria  gave  up  the  Tyrol  and  Austrian  Swabia,  and  also 
the  title  of  emperor.  The  King  of  Naples  was  dethroned 
and  replaced  by  Joseph  Bonaparte,  Murat  became  Grand 
Duke  of  Berg,  and,  in  fact,  the  entire  map  of  northeastern 
Europe  was  changed  at  the  dictation  of  the  little  Corsican. 

The  defeat  of  the  coalition  and  the  divisions  affected  un- 
der this  wholesale  partition  by  Napoleon,  and  the  desertion 
of  Austria,  left  Russia  almost  alone  on  the  continent.  Dur- 
ing the  following  year,  a  coalition  between  Russia,  England, 
Sweden  and  Prussia  was  made,  but  Russia  bore  the  brunt 
of  the  struggle.  The  French  occupied  Berlin,  and  took  the 
fortresses  on  the  Oder  and  the  Vistula.  Nothing  remained 
to  Frederick  William  in  the  north  but  three  fortresses,  Dant- 
zig,  Konigsberg  and  Memel,  and  a  small  army  of  14,000 
men  under  Lestocq. 

After  Austerlitz,  Russia  tried  to  negotiate  with  Napoleon, 
but  her  overtures  met  with  no  success.  The  result  was  that 
Alexander,  secure  against  Prussia,  began  the  formation  of 
a  new  army,  recruiting  one  man  in  every  hundred  in  the 
empire.  He  summoned  students  and  young  nobles  to  his 
assistance,  promising  to  them  promotion  after  six  months' 
service.  The  priests  were  ordered  to  proclaim  everywhere 
that  war  was  made — "was  made  not  for  vainglory,  but  for 
the  salvation  of  the  country."  England  was  asked  for  a  loan 
of  6,000,000  francs,  and  Austria  was  appealed  to  for  help. 
An  army  of  88,000  men  was  mobilized,  with  Field  Marshal 
Kamenski  at  its  head.  The  infirmities  of  the  latter  soon 
brought  about  retirement,  and  Bennigsen  succeeded  him,  a 
man  of  boundless  energy,  though  not  a  professional  soldier. 

Marshals  Murat,  Davoust  and  Lannes  had  entered  War- 
saw, then  a  Prussian  possession.  Soult  and  Augereau 
crossed  the  Vistula  at  Modlin  and  formed  the  center ;  in  the 
left,  Ney  and  Bernadotte  occupied  Thorn  and  Elburg ;  Mor- 


THE  RISE  OF  RUSSIA  191 

tier  acted  in  Pomerania  against  the  Swedes;  Lefebvre  be- 
sieged Dantzig,  and  Jerome  Bonaparte  with  Vandamme  fin- 
ished the  conquest  of  Silesia.  Pressed  by  the  Grand  Army, 
Bennigsen  was  obliged  to  evacuate  Poland,  after  severe 
fighting,  and  retired  by  way  of  Ostrolenka,  leaving  in  the 
marshes  and  mud  of  Poland  eighty  field  pieces  and  nearly 
10,000  of  his  men. 

While  the  Grand  Army  were  in  winter  quarters,  Bennig- 
sen conceived  the  bold  project  of  passing  between  the  forces 
of  Bernadotte  and  Ney,  and  forcing  the  latter  into  the  sea, 
thus  relieving  Dantzig  and  carrying  the  war  into  Brouden- 
berg  located  in  rear  of  Napoleon.  Bennigsen  was  disas- 
trously defeated;  however,  he  reorganized  the  remnant  of 
his  army  at  Eylau,  and  took  up  a  position  to  the  east  of  the 
town,  on  a  line  of  heights  extending  from  Schloditten  to 
Serpallen,  his  front  covered  by  250  pieces  of  cannon.  The 
battle  of  Eylau  was  stubbornly  fought,  was  in  fact  one  of 
the  bloodiest  of  the  country,  but  Bennigsen  again  suffered 
defeat  (Feb.  8,  1807).  That  field  of  snow,  strewn  with  the 
slain,  afforded  one  of  the  most  tragic  exhibitions  in  the  his- 
tory of  warfare.  The  French  subsequently  suffered  greatly 
from  the  extreme  cold  and  underwent  numberless  privations. 
Then  followed  the  treaty  of  Bartenstein  (April  25,  1807), 
which  provided  for:  1.  The  re-establishment  of  Prussia; 
2.  Dissolution  of  the  Confederacy  of  the  Rhine;  3.  The 
restitution  to  Austria  of  the  Tyrol  and  Venice;  4.  The  ac- 
cession of  England  to  the  coalition,  and  the  aggrandizement 
of  Hanover;  and  5.  The  co-operation  of  Sweden.  This 
treaty  was  important,  as  it  nearly  presented  the  conditions 
offered  Napoleon  at  the  Congress  of  Prague  in  1813. 

In  the  spring  of  1808,  Bennigsen,  at  the  head  of  100,000 
men,  took  the  offensive.  He  tried  again  to  seize  Ney's  di- 
vision, but  the  latter  fought,  as  he  retired,  two  bloody  en- 


192  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORED 

gagements,  at  Gutstadt  and  Aukendorff,  when  Bennigsen.  in 
danger  of  being  surrounded,  retired  on  Heilsberg.  He  was 
finally  forced  to  make  a  stand  at  Friedland  on  the  Alle. 
Here,  on  June  14,  the  Russians  were  again  defeated,  losing 
from  15,000  to  20,000  men  and  eighty  guns.  Alexander  had 
no  longer  an  army.  Only  one  man,  Barclay  de  Tolly,  pro- 
posed to  continue  the  war,  but  in  order  to  do  this,  it  would 
be  necessary  to  re-enter  Russia,  to  penetrate  to  the  very 
heart  of  the  Empire,  to  burn  everything  on  the  way,  and 
only  present  a  desert  to  the  enemy.  Alexander  hoped  to  get 
off  more  cheaply.  He  wrote  a  severe  letter  to  Bennigsen  and 
gave  him  power  to  treat.  Prince  Lobanof  left  on  a  mission 
to  Napoleon,  who  sent  in  his  turn  Captain  de  Talleyrand 
Perigord.  "Alexander  had  at  that  time,"  says  Rambaud,  "a 
common  sentiment  with  Napoleon — hatred  of  the  English. 
He  neither  pardoned  them  for  their  refusal  to  guarantee  a 
Russian  loan,  nor  for  the  calculated  insufficiency  of  their 
diversions,  nor  for  their  mercantile  selfishness." 

On  June  25  (1807),  the  famous  interview  on  the  raft  at 
Tilsit  took  place.  Alexander  and  Napoleon  conversed  for 
nearly  two  hours,  the  King  of  Prussia  being  barred  from 
participating  in  a  conference  on  which  depended  the  fate  of 
his  dynasty.  Napoleon  stated  it  was  from  "respect  for  the 
Emperor  of  Russia,  and  desire  to  unite  the  two  nations  in  a 
bond  of  eternal  friendship,"  that  he  consented  to  restore  to 
Frederick  William  III,  Old  Prussia,  Pomerania,  Branden- 
berg  and  Silesia.  These  articles  were  the  finishing  blow  to 
the  fall  of  Prussia.  On  the  west  she  was  deprived  of  all  her 
possessions  between  the  Rhine  and  the  Elbe,  with  Magde- 
burg. Napoleon  deprived  her  allies  of  Brunswick  and  Cas- 
sel,  and  on  the  east,  confiscated  all  Poland.  He  thus  broke 
the  two  wings  of  the  Prussian  eagle.  On  its  right  he  estab- 
lished the  Kingdom  of  Westphalia;  on  its  left,  the  Grand 


THE  RISE  OF  RUSSIA  193 

Duchy  of  Warsaw.  Dantzig  was  declared  a  free  town,  the 
district  of  Belostok,  part  of  dismembered  Black  Russia, 
again  became  Russian  territory.  The  states  of  the  princes 
of  Mecklenburg  and  Oldenburg  were  restored  to  them,  but 
they  had  to  suffer  the  occupation  of  their  territory  for  the 
carrying  out  of  the  continental  blockade,  and,  like  Saxony, 
the  states  of  Thuringa,  and  all  the  smaller  princes  of  Ger- 
many, they  were  forced  to  accede  to  the  confederation  of  the 
Rhine.  The  King  of  Prussia  adhered  to  the  continental 
blockade.  His  dominions  were  not  to  be  given  back  to  him 
till  after  the  complete  payment  of  a  war  indemnity. 

Two  treaties  were  made  relative  to  Prussia,  that  of  Til- 
sit, and  a  second  which  was  secret.  A  third  treaty,  both  of- 
fensive and  defensive,  provided  that  an  ultimatum  should 
be  made  to  England  on  the  first  of  November,  and  that  if  it 
had  no  results,  war  should  be  declared  against  her  by  Russia 
on  December  1st ;  that  Turkey  should  be  allowed  a  delay  of 
three  months  to  make  her  peace  with  the  Tzar,  and  that  then 
the  two  high  contracting  powers  should  come  to  an  under- 
standing to  liberate  all  the  Ottoman  provinces  in  Europe, 
Constantinople  and  Roumelia  excepted,  from  the  yoke  of 
the  Turks ;  that  Sweden  should  be  summoned  to  break  with 
England,  and  if  she  refused  Denmark  was  to  be  invited  to 
take  part  in  the  war  against  her,  and  Finland  was  to  be  an- 
nexed to  Russia,  and  that  Austria  should  be  invited  to  accede 
to  a  system  of  continental  blockade  at  the  same  time  as  Swe- 
den, Denmark  and  Portugal. 

This  change  in  the  foreign  policy  was  to  bring  with  it  a 
change  in  the  composition  of  the  government.  New  leaders 
were  substituted  in  nearly  every  department.  These  changes 
and  a  rapidly  growing  antipathy  towards  the  French  nation 
and  French  ideas,  previously  in  great  vogue  in  Russia,  caused 
discontent  among  the  people. 


194  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

The  alliance  concluded  at  Tilsit  and  confirmed  at  Erfurt 
was  to  involve  Russia  in  three  new  wars — one  against  Eng- 
land, another  against  Sweden,  and  a  third  against  Austria. 
Besides  these,  the  wars  which  had  begun  with  Turkey  in 
1806,  and  against  Persia  and  the  Caucasus,  still  continued. 
After  the  war  with  Austria  (1809,  April),  or  what  has  been 
termed  the  "comedy  of  contest,"  there  followed  the  Treaty 
of  Vienna,  at  which  Russia  was  not  represented.  The  em- 
peror did  not  intend  to  sanction  the  results,  and  by  so  doing 
left  Austria  unsupported.  She  was  consequently  obliged  to 
make  numerous  sacrifices.  The  Illyrian  provinces  and  all 
of  Galicia  were  ceded.  Napoleon  added  Western  Galicia, 
with  1,500,000  people,  to  the  Grand  Duchy  of  Warsaw, 
while  he  gave  Eastern  Galicia  and  a  population  of  400,000 
to  Russia  (Oct.  14,  1809). 

The  Servians  were  now  becoming  restless,  their  turbulent 
militia  entering  into  a  contest  with  the  Pasha  of  Belgrade, 
and  even  defied  the  authority  of  the  Sultan.  They  rose 
against  the  Janissaries  and  expelled  all  the  Mussulmans 
from  Belgrade.  They  would  have  been  crushed  by  the  Sul- 
tan had  not  Alexander  sent  them  a  corps  under  Colonel  Bala. 
This  difference  was  adjusted  at  the  Congress  of  Bucharest 
in  1812,  with  the  agreement  that  the  Servians  should  re- 
main subject  to  the  Sultan,  but  should  be  governed  by  their 
own  local  governor  and  assembly. 

The  estrangement  between  Alexander  and  Napoleon  be- 
came greater  daily,  the  most  important  causes  being :  1.  The 
growth  of  the  Grand  Duchy  of  Warsaw;  2.  The  dissatis- 
faction of  Napoleon  at  the  conduct  of  the  Russians  in  the 
campaign  of  1809 ;  3.  The  abandonment  of  the  project  of  a 
Russian  marriage,  and  the  substitution  of  an  Austrian  mar- 
riage; 4.  The  increasing  rivalry  of  the  two  states  at  Con- 


THE  RISE  OF  RUSSIA  195 

stantinople  and  on  the  Danube;  5.  The  Napoleonic  encroach- 
ments of  1810  in  northern  Germany;  6.  The  irritation  pro- 
duced by  the  continental  blockade;  7.  Finally  the  mistrust 
occasioned  by  the  respective  armaments. 

In  1810  the  Senatus  Consultum,  by  the  decree  of  July, 
pronounced  the  union  of  the  whole  of  Holland  to  the  French 
empire ;  by  the  decree  of  December,  the  future  union  of  three 
Hanseatic  towns  of  Oldenburg  and  other  German  territories. 
Where  were  these  encroachments  to  stop?  Hamburg,  Bre- 
men and  Lubeck,  free  towns,  whose  commerce  was  an  object 
of  interest  to  the  whole  world,  and  especially  to  Russia,  had 
become  French.  The  annexation  of  Oldenburg  provoked 
Alexander  deeply.  He  saw  his  sister  Catherine  and  her  hus- 
band robbed  of  their  crowns  and  forced  to  fly  to  St.  Peters- 
burg. As  to  the  continental  blockade,  although  it  was  ob- 
served by  Russia  less  strictly  than  by  France,  Russia  still 
suffered  cruelly  from  it.  Her  commerce  was  greatly  in- 
jured and  the  value  of  her  money  had  fallen.  In  December, 
1810,  Alexander  promulgated  an  edict,  which,  with  the  ap- 
parent design  of  preventing  specie  from  leaving  the  country, 
proscribed,  the  importation  of  objects  of  luxury  from  what- 
ever country  they  might  come.  This  chiefly  struck  at  French 
commerce.  The  forbidden  goods  were  ordered  in  every  in- 
stance to  be  burned.  Napoleon  was  exasperated  as  a  con- 
sequence, and  everything  pointed  to  war  as  inevitable. 

At  the  Court  of  Murat,  King  of  Naples,  the  French  En- 
voy, Durand,  fought  a  duel  with  the  Russian  Envoy,  Dal- 
gorouki.  Alexander  disgraced  Speranski,  the  friend  of 
France,  and  sent  for  Stein,  the  great  German  patriot,  Na- 
poleon's mortal  foe,  placed  by  him  under  the  ban  of  the  Con- 
federation. Russia  concluded  peace  with  Turkey,  negotiated 
with  Sweden  for  an  alliance,  and  with  England  for  a  treaty 
of  subsidies.     Napoleon  signed  two  conventions  with  Prus- 


196  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

sia  and  Austria,  which  assured  him  the  support  of  20,000 
Prussians  and  30,000  Austrians  in  the  projected  expeditions. 
On  May  9,  1812,  Napoleon  left  Paris  for  his  army.  Am- 
bassadors Kourakine  and  Lauriston  were  given  their  pass- 
ports. 

When  the  Grand  Army  prepared  to  cross  the  Niemen  for 
the  invasion  of  Russia,  Napoleon  had  290,000  men,  half  of 
whom  were  French.  The  left  was  in  front  of  Tilsit,  10,000 
French  under  McDonald,  and  20,000  Prussians  under  Gen- 
eral York  of  Wartenburg.  Napoleon  was  with  the  center 
before  Kovno,  including  the  corps  of  Davoust,  Oudinot  and 
Ney,  the  guard  under  Bessieres,  and  cavalry  reserve  under 
Murat,  a  total  of  180,000  men.  Before  Pilony,  Eugene's 
command  included  50,000  Italians  and  Bavarians,  and  the 
extreme  right,  before  Grodno,  was  the  command  of  Jerome 
Bonaparte,  with  60,000  Poles,  Saxons,  etc. 

Alexander  had  collected  on  the  Niemen  90,000  men,  un- 
der Bagration,  on  the  Bug,  60,000,  under  Barclay  de  Tolly. 
On  the  extreme  right,  Wittgenstein,  with  30,000,  was  to  op- 
pose McDonald,  and  Tormassof  had  40,000  men  to  support 
this  line.  Later  this  latter  army,  reinforced  by  50,000  men 
from  the  Danube,  under  Admiral  Tchitichagof,  was  seri- 
ously to  embarrass  the  retreat  of  the  French.  In  the  rear 
of  all  these  forces  was  a  reserve  of  80,000  men,  Cossacks 
and  militia.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  Russia  had  only 
150,000  to  oppose  the  allies.  He  counted  on  the  devotion  of 
the  nation. 

The  greatest  mistake  ever  made  by  Napoleon  was  in  not 
re-establishing  the  Kingdom  of  Poland  as  a  buffer  state,  but 
in  invading  Russia  instead. 

Murat  reached  Krasure,  and  a  fierce  battle  was  fought 
there  August  14.  Another  desperate  fight  occurred  at 
Smolensk  on  the  16th,  17th,  and  18th,  the  place  being  taken 


THE  RISE  OF  RUSSIA  197 

and  burned.  Some  20,000  men  were  killed.  Ney  fought 
the  retreating  army  of  Bagration  at  Valoutina;  and  15,000 
men  of  both  armies  perished  in  the  conflict. 

The  Russians  fell  back,  burning  towns  and  destroying 
provisions.  Koutouzof,  with  the  united  armies  of  Barclay 
and  Bagration,  halted  at  Borodino,  near  Moskowa.  He  had 
72,000  infantry,  18,000  regular  cavalry,  7,000  cossacks,  10,- 
000  militia,  and  640  cannon,  served  by  14,000  artillerists ;  in 
all,  121,000  men. 

Napoleon  had  concentrated  from  his  marching  columns 
130,000  men— 86,000  infantry,  28,000  cavalry,  and  587 
guns,  served  by  16,000  artillerists. 

Beginning  the  battle  with  a  frightful  artillery  fire,  the  in- 
fantry charges  of  the  French  were  successful  in  forcing  the 
Russians  back  and  after  an  obstinate  fight  at  the  outworks, 
Koutouzof  gave  the  signal  to  retreat.  The  French  lost 
30,000  men,  including  49  generals  and  37  colonels,  killed 
or  wounded.  The  Russian  loss  was  greater ;  yet  this  battle 
was  the  death-blow  to  Napoleon's  purpose.  He  could  con- 
centrate 100,000  men,  and  Koutouzof  but  50,000;  but  the 
French  losses  at  this  distance  from  their  base  were  irrepar- 
able. 

The  invasion  proceeded  and  the  burning  city  of  Moscow 
entered  September  14th;  and  on  the  19th  of  October  the 
Grand  Army,  with  famine  and  desolation  staring  it  in  the 
face,  began  its  retreat.  More  than  10,000  men  had  al- 
ready perished  from  hunger;  and  bands  of  armed  peasants, 
of  guerillas,  and  Cossacks  were  threatening  on  all  sides. 
The  roads  in  all  directions  save  that  to  Smolensk,  which  had 
been  laid  waste,  were  barred  by  Russian  armies. 

In  the  battle  of  Viasma,  November  3rd,  Ney  and  Eugene 
defeated  40,000  Russians ;  but  victories  counted  for  little  to 
men  perishing  with  hunger  and  cold.     Only  40,000  French 


198  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

crossed  the  Berezina  the  last  of  November,  while  140,000 
Russians  were  around  and  behind  them.  The  sick  and 
wounded  French  left  in  the  houses  at  Vilna  were  thrown 
out  of  the  windows.  Thirty  thousand  corpses  were  burned 
on  piles;  and  when  Ney  recrossed  the  Niemen  with  the  last 
remnant  of  the  Grand  Army  330,000  of  its  members  were 
left  behind  dead  or  in  prison. 

Alexander  reorganized  his  army  and  after  the  battle  of 
Dresden  (Aug.  26,  1813)  the  Russian  troops  under  Bar- 
clay, Ostermann  and  Ermolof  attacked  and  captured  nearly 
half  of  the  French  under  Vandamme  (Aug.  30)  at  Kulm. 
Russian  troops  participated  in  the  victory  over  the  French 
at  Leipsic  October  19 ;  and  also  in  the  defeats  at  St.  Didier, 
Montmirail,  Chateau  Thierry,  and  Mormans  and  Monte- 
reau  (Feb.  17-18).  At  Craonne  (March  7)  the  Russian 
loss  of  5,000  was  one-third  their  effective  force,  while  the 
battle  of  Leon  (March  9-10),  in  which  Napoleon  was  de- 
feated, cost  them  4,000  men. 

At  the  Congress  of  Vienna  (Oct.  2),  besides  the  settle- 
ment of  the  position  of  France,  occurred  the  fourth  parti- 
tion of  Poland,  in  which  Russia  gained  3,000,000  (King- 
dom of  Poland)  inhabitants.  The  gains  of  Prussia  in  the 
distribution  were  5,392,000  souls  (Western  Poland,  Sax- 
ony, Swedish  Pomerania,  Westphalia,  and  the  Rhenish 
provinces),  and  Austria  10,000,000  (Galicia,  Germany  and 
Italy). 

The  Emperor  Alexander  was  much  of  a  mystic,  and  to 
him  is  accredited  the  Holy  Alliance  signed  in  September, 
after  Waterloo,  by  the  crowned  heads  of  Russia,  Prussia 
and  Austria ;  and  also  the  expulsion  of  the  Jesuits  from  Rus- 
sia, March  25,  1820.  Yet  his  religion  does  not  appear  to 
have  interfered  with  the  national  policy  of  extending  Rus- 
sian domination. 


THE  RISE  OF  RUSSIA  199 

In  1821,  the  Balkan  states,  largely  peopled  by  the  co- 
religionists of  the  Russians,  evinced  much  uneasiness  as  to 
their  state  of  subjection  to  the  Ottoman  yoke.  The  Greeks 
had  formally  proclaimed  their  independence  of  Turkey  on 
March  25,  1821 ;  and  the  Hetairia,  or  patriotic  society,  was 
promulgated  in  all  the  provinces  and  islands  of  Greece.  One 
martyr,  Rigas,  was  delivered  up  by  the  Austrians  and  exe- 
cuted by  the  Turks.  Ypsilanti,  the  patriot  leader  who  had 
served  in  the  Russian  ranks,  did  not  believe  that  the  Tzar 
would  fail  to  support  him.  But  the  influence  of  Metter- 
nich,  the  Austrian  Premier,  was  more  potent.  Servia  had 
taken  up  arms  also  under  Miloch  Obrenvitch,  and  looked 
to  Alexander  for  assistance.  What  happened?  At  the 
feast  of  Easter,  Greeks  and  Servians  were  assaulted  by  the 
Turks  generally,  and  the  Patriarch  at  Constantinople  was 
seized  at  the  altar  and  hung  at  the  door  of  his  church  in  his 
priestly  robes.  The  Grand  Vizier  watched  with  amuse- 
ment the  populace  drag  his  corpse  through  the  streets.  Three 
metropolitans  and  eight  bishops  were  slain.  All  Russia 
trembled  with  indignation.  But  the  Tzar  exchanged  notes 
with  the  Porte,  and  the  courts  of  England  and  Austria — 
and  the  massacres  continued.  But  Russia  in  the  meanwhile 
increased  her  territory  by  the  addition  of  Finland,  Poland, 
Bessarabia,  and  part  of  the  Caucasus.  To  their  indiffer- 
ence, the  Russian  people  attributed  the  terrible  inundation 
at  St.  Petersburg,  and  the  premature  and  mysterious  death 
of  Alexander  which  followed. 

The  reign  of  Nicholas  I  was  ushered  in  (December,  1825) 
by  a  conspiracy  and  insurrection,  which  was  soon  quelled, 
though  the  aim  of  the  rebels  seems  to  have  been  to  secure 
the  independence  of  the  peasants,  a  greater  equality  of 
rights,  and  more  stability  in  the  law. 

The  next  year  war  broke  out  with  Persia — which  lasted 


200  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

two  years;  and  also  a  war  with  Turkey  which  ran  three 
years,  the  liberation  of  Greece  being  effected  in  the  year 
(1829).  The  Polish  insurrection  of  1831,  and  the  inter- 
vention in  Hungary  in  1848  which  seated  Francis  Joseph  on 
the  throne  of  the  Dual  Monarchy,  were  the  chief  military 
events  preceding  the  second  outbreak  with  Turkey  and  the 
Crimean  war  extending  from  March,  1854,  to  March,  1856, 
in  which  England,  France,  and  Sardinia,  were  allied  with 
Turkey  against  Russia. 

The  losses  in  the  battles  of  the  Alma,  Balaklava,  Inker- 
mann,  Tchernaya,  and  assaults  on  the  forts  were  as  follows : 
English — killed  and  dead  from  wounds,  3,500;  dead  from 
cholera  and  other  diseases,  22,000.  The  French  lost  some 
63,500  men,  and  the  Russians  500,000. 


FRANZ  JOSEPH 

EMPEROR   OF    AUSTRIA 


CHAPTER  VII. 

GERMANY  AND  PRUSSIA. 

Though  Caesar  termed  the  Belgians  "the  bravest"  from 
the  time  of  the  victory  of  Arminius  (4  A.  D.),  the  Ger- 
mans continued  to  be  the  most  dangerous  enemies  of  Rome. 
As  we  have  seen,  Constantine  and  Julian  had  to  make  stren- 
uous efforts  to  withstand  the  Germans,  as  did  Valentinian 
later;  and  the  Germans,  from  their  service  in  the  Roman 
armies,  as  well  as  in  other  ways,  gained  in  experience, 
strength  and  courage,  and  really  grew  stronger  as  the 
Romans  grew  weaker. 

As  the  Roman  idea  of  empire  was  based  upon  Greek 
models,  so  the  German  idea,  as  well  as  that  of  the  French, 
was  founded  upon  the  Roman.  The  glory  of  the  state  was 
placed  before  that  of  any  individual,  the  Emperor  alone  be- 
ing excepted;  for  he  was  the  head  of  the  State,  by  divine 
right. 

The  religion  of  the  Germans  but  served  to  accentuate 
their  warlike  tendencies.  They  believed  in  the  great  god 
Woden,  his  brother  Frey,  and  his  son  Thor,  who  were  all 
supposed  to  live  in  a  gorgeous  palace  called  Valhalla — Val 
meaning  a  brave  death  in  battle. 

The  Goths  were  a  German  people,  who  settled  in  Trajan's 
province  of  Dacia,  north  of  the  Danube.     Though  forced 


202  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

back  by  the  Huns  in  the  fourth  century,  they  were  never 
driven  out  of  Europe.  Savagery  and  lawlessness  prevailed 
among  all  the  different  German  tribes.  Conrad,  chief  of 
the  Salians,  was  the  first  elected  emperor  (912) ;  but  when 
he  found  that  his  own  following  was  not  strong  enough  he 
advocated  and  caused  to  be  elected  his  adversary,  Henry  of 
Saxony,  known  as  the  Fowler,  who  was  crowned  at  Fritzlar, 
in  Hesse,  in  April,  919.  Soon  his  sway  was  acknowledged 
by  the  Dukes  of  Swabia,  Bavaria,  and  Lorraine.  He  de- 
feated the  Wends,  a  powerful  Slavic  tribe,  at  the  battle  of 
Lenzen  in  929,  when  200,000  of  them  are  said  to  have  been 
slain.  The  Germans  had  continued  to  resist  the  devastating 
invasions  of  the  Hungarians  or  Magyars,  decade  after  de- 
cade and  century  after  century,  till  Henry  defeated  them 
in  a  decisive  battle  at  Merseburg,  March  15,  933.  Otto  suc- 
ceeded Henry  (936  A.  D.),  and  it  was  Otto's  victory  on  the 
Lechfield  (955)  that  put  an  end  to  the  incursions  of  the 
Huns  and  forced  them  to  settle  in  the  territory  they  now 
occupy.  The  Franks,  another  German  tribe,  occupying  the 
banks  of  the  Rhine  and  regions  westward,  had  assisted 
greatly  in  this  result,  as  we  have  seen,  by  the  defeat  of 
Attila  at  the  battle  of  Soissons  (485). 

Otto  was  the  first  to  acquire  the  Roman  Imperial  crown, 
with  which  he  was  crowned  in  the  church  of  St.  Peter's  in 
Rome  in  February,  936,  by  Pope  John  XII.  As  Otto  now 
assumed  all  the  rights  of  control  over  Rome  formerly  exer- 
cised by  Charlemagne,  Pope  John  rebelled  and  entered  into 
a  conspiracy  with  the  ex-king  Berengar,  to  secure  the  aid  of 
Constantinople  and  of  the  Hungarians.  Otto,  on  learning 
of  this,  returned  to  Rome,  deposed  Pope  John,  and  elected 
Leo  VIII  as  Pope.  Thus  the  Imperial  dignity  was  won 
for  the  German  power,  and  the  Empire  was  joined  perma- 
nently to  itself.     From  this  time  on  whoever  was  crowned 


GERMANY   AND    PRUSSIA  203 

King  of  Germany  had  the  right  to  be  crowned  King  of  Italy 
at  Milan  and  Emperor  at  Rome.  Italy  was  thus  again 
united  with  the  Kingdom  of  Germany. 

Otto  II  succeeded  his  father,  and  reigned  till  980,  wag- 
ing wars  with  the  Danes, — forcing  King  Harold  to  become 
a  Christian, — and  also  with  the  Eastern  Emperors  over 
Southern  Italy.  Otto  III,  known  as  the  "Wonder  of  the 
World,"  desired  to  make  Rome  the  Capital  of  the  world 
again.  But  his  plans  were  cut  short  by  death  in  1002,  and 
his  successor  Henry  II,  descended  from  Henry  the  Fowler, 
was  the  last  Saxon  Emperor. 

During  the  reigns  of  the  Franconian  Emperors  (1024- 
1114)  the  domain  increased.  Burgundy  was  joined  to  the 
Empire  (1032)  during  the  reign  of  Conrad  II;  the  quarrel 
between  the  rival  claimants  for  the  Popedom  occurred  dur- 
ing the  reign  of  Henry  III;  the  Saxons  revolted  in  1077, 
during  Henry  IV's  reign;  and  the  king,  after  wandering 
about  half-starved  and  selling  his  boots  to  buy  bread,  died 
at  Liege  in  1106,  Henry  V  dying  three  years  later. 

During  this  period,  which  marks  the  beginning  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  the  two  great  powers  in  Western  Europe  were 
the  Empire  and  the  Church.  It  was  held  that  of  divine 
right  there  were  two  Vicars  of  God  upon  earth,  a  temporal 
one,  the  Emperor,  and  a  spiritual  one,  the  Pope.  This  view 
was  adhered  to  more  consistently  in  the  case  of  the  Pope 
than  of  the  Emperor,  but  it  was  held  by  the  Emperors  them- 
selves, as  well. 

Germany  was  now  the  center  of  the  Empire  of  the  West, 
though,  through  the  control  of  Italy  and  Burgundy,  it  had 
many  subjects  speaking  the  Latin  tongues;  while  the 
Wends,  of  Slavic  origin,  dwelling  along  the  south  coast  of 
the  Baltic,  in  Mecklenburg  and  Pomerania,  as  well  as  in 


204  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

other  lands  beyond  the  Elbe,  gradually  acquired  the  Low- 
Dutch  in  place  of  Slavonic. 

Conrad  III  (1137-1152),  the  first  of  the  Swabian  Em- 
perors, took  active  part  in  the  second  crusade,  and  the  civil 
wars  began  in  his  reign  between  the  imperial  and  papal  par- 
ties, called  the  Ghibellines  and  Guelphs. 

Frederick  Barbarossa,  during  his  reign  (1152-1190),  was 
forced  to  make  no  less  than  six  expeditions  into  Italy  to 
keep  that  country  under  control.  Milan  and  some  other 
cities  in  Lombardy  tried  to  erect  their  territories  into  small 
republics.  (  Frederick  also  engaged  in  a  violent  quarrel  with 
Pope  Alexander  III,  which  brought  on  a  war,  and  the  Em- 
peror's forces  were  defeated  at  the  battle  of  Legnano  (1176 
A.  D.). 

At  Frederick's  death  Germany  was  divided  as  to  who 
should  become  king,  there  being  three  princes,  Frederick, 
Philip,  and  Otto,  who  had  all  been  chosen  kings  of  the  Ro- 
mans. Little  Frederick,  the  son  of  Henry  VI,  was  but 
three  years  old;  Philip,  Duke  of  Swabia,  was  the  onlv  son 
of  Barbarossa;  and  Otto,  Duke  of  Brunswick,  was  the  son 
of  Henry  the  Lion.  Pope  Innocent  III,  although  Philip 
had  begun  to  reign,  decided  in  favor  of  Otto.  Germany 
thus  had  two  kings  till  1208,  when  Philip  was  murdered  in 
the  Tyrol,  the  assassin  being  slain  shortly  after  by  Philip's 
son-in-law.  Otto  mixed  himself  up  in  a  quarrel  of  the 
Duke  of  Brabant,  the  Count  of  Flanders,  and  others,  with 
King  Philip  Augustus;  and  in  a  terrible  battle  fought  at 
Bouvines  in  1214  Otto  and  his  allies  were  defeated.  •  In 
fact  the  entire  interval  between  Barbarossa's  death  and  the 
ascension  of  the  Hapsburgs  (1190-1273)  was  filled  with 
internal  and  foreign  wars. 

Frederick  II  (1212-1250)  made  two  expeditions  to  the 
Holy  Land  and  had  various  contests  with  Italian  cities  and 


GERMANY    AND    PRUSSIA  205 

with  the  Pope.  His  son  Manfred  fell  fighting  for  his  king- 
dom at  the  battle  of  Beneventum. 

The  condition  of  the  German  Empire  became  such  at  this 
period  that  the  crown  was  offered  for  sale  to  the  highest 
bidder.  Various  offers  were  made  and  the  matter  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Pope,  who  promised  to  settle  it,  but  did  not; 
and  Germany  was  in  a  state  of  turbulence  for  many  years. 
Historians  note  an  interregnum  in  the  German  Empire  from 
1254,  the  date  of  the  death  of  Conrad  IV,  to  the  election 
of  Rudolph  in  1273 ;  and  these  nineteen  years  are  filled  with 
bitter  quarrels,  warfare  and  murder.  Conradine,  the 
youngest  son  of  Conrad,  at  the  head  of  a  body  of  troops, 
attempted  to  take  control  and  his  efforts  were  successful  at 
first;  but  he  was  treacherously  ambuscaded  and  captured, 
and  given  over  to  Charles  of  Anjou,  Count  of  Provence, 
France,  then  ruling  in  Naples,  by  whom  he  was  beheaded. 
The  son  of  Manfred  died  in  prison,  as  did  other  possible 
heirs  to  the  throne.  All  the  adherents  of  Conradine  were 
treated  with  the  greatest  cruelty  by  Charles.  This  led  to 
retaliation.  John,  of  Procida,  swore  vengeance.  By  his  in- 
fluence all  the  French  throughout  the  island  of  Sicily  with- 
out regard  to  age  or  sex,  to  the  number  of  8,000,  on  Easter 
day,  1282,  were  massacred,  the  tolling  of  the  bell  for  vespers 
being  the  signal.  The  island  was  then  given  over  to  Man- 
fred's son-in-law,  Peter  of  Aragon,  who  not  only  repelled 
all  the  attacks  of  Charles,  but  established  an  independent 
kingdom,  the  first  king  of  Sicily  being  his  son  Frederick. 

The  cities  of  Italy  were  meanwhile  ruling  themselves 
without  much  regard  to  the  Empire,  while  the  great  dukes 
and  princes,  bishops  of  Germany,  through  seizing  one  claim 
after  another,  were  becoming  as  powerful  as  kings.  Seven 
of  these  chiefs  were  competent  to  elect  a  king  of  Germany. 
They  were  the  three  grand  chancellors,  the  Archbishops  of 


206  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORL,D 

Mainz,  Koln,  and  Trier,  with  the  King  of  Bohemia,  grand 
cup-bearer;  the  high  steward,  the  Duke  of  Bavaria;  the 
grand  marshal,  the  Duke  of  Saxony;  and  the  Pfalzgraf  of 
the  Rhine.  These  were  the  royal  electors,  and  sat  apart  in 
the  diet,  making  up  a  separate  college. 

The  German  cities,  in  the  absence  of  an  Emperor,  had  also 
become  very  strong.  In  1241  a  league  was  formed  of  the 
Hanse  (Hanse,  an  alliance)  towns,  the  most  powerful  com- 
mercial body  ever  known.  Their  fleets  visited  the  Mediter- 
ranean, were  capable  of  repelling  pirates,  and  fought  with 
the  ships  of  the  cities  of  Genoa,  Pisa,  and  Venice.  At  first 
including  only  Lubeck  and  Hamburg,  in  the  fourteenth  and 
fifteenth  centuries  the  Hanseatic  League  embraced  as  many 
as  seventy  cities  and  controlled  three  hundred  ships  manned 
by  12,000  sailors.  At  the  height  of  its  prosperity,  the 
League  included:  1 — The  Wend  towns  of  Lubeck,  Ham- 
burg, Bremen,  Rostock,  Keil,  Grief swald,  Stettin,  and  Wis- 
by,  etc.  2 — Towns  of  Holland  and  Westphalia,  Cologne 
being  the  principal  city.  3 — Saxon  towns,  Brunswick  being 
chief,  and  including  Magdeburg,  Halle,  Hanover,  Erfurt, 
Brandenburg,  Frankfort,  Breslau,  etc.  4 — Eastern  towns, 
including  Thorn,  Konigsberg,  Riga,  etc.,  under  Dantzic. 
This  League  waged  bloody  wars  with  the  Scandinavian 
countries  and  with  England.  Its  chief  executive,  Alexander 
von  Soltwedal,  a  citizen  of  Lubeck,  sacked  Copenhagen  in 
1249,  and  burned  the  Danish  settlement  of  Stralsund.  To- 
ward the  end  of  the  century  they  blockaded  and  plundered 
the  coasts  of  Norway,  seized  the  fleet  of  King- Erie,  and 
compelled  him  through  the  Treaty  of  Calmar,  1285,  to  grant 
the  League  a  commercial  monopoly.  They  waged  a  blcody 
war  with  Denmark  and  Sweden  in  1361,  prevented  the  in- 
corporation of  Schleswig  and  Holstein  with  Denmark,  and 
made  the  Danes  consent  not  to  choose  a  king  without  the 


GERMANY   AND   PRUSSIA  207 

concurrence  of  the  League.  Queen  Margaret  of  Sweden, 
was  forced  to  place  Stockholm  in  their  hands  for  three  years 
as  a  pledge  that  she  would  observe  the  treaty.  Later  they 
attempted  to  dethrone  Gustavus  Vasa  of  Sweden  and  sub- 
ject Denmark  completely,  but  failed  in  both  projects. 

Much  of  the  activity  of  the  Middle  Ages  was  in  relation 
to  the  waging  of  the  Crusades,  religious  wars  against  the 
Turks,  and  later,  in  other  directions.  The  spirit  of  chivalry, 
which  began  to  develop  during  the  ninth  century  and  had 
received  great  impetus  during  the  successive  expeditions  to 
the  Holy  Land,  and  instituted  military  orders,  such  as  the 
Knights  Templars,  and  the  Knights  of  St.  John,  came  to  be 
extended  in  other  directions  and  by  various  classes.  Thus 
the  Crusades,  which  had  at  first  been  preached  against  in- 
fidels, were  later  directed  by  one  class  of  Christians  against 
another  class;  and  by  Christians  against  heathens. 

Thus  Crusades  were  preached  against  the  Counts  of 
Toulouse  and  the  Counts  of  Provence;  and  in  Sicily  they 
were  preached  against  King  Conrad,  and  later  against  Man- 
fred, when,  as  already  referred  to,  he  was  slain  by  the 
army  of  Charles,  Count  of  Anjou,  to  whom  Pope  Urban  the 
Fourth  had  offered  the  crown. 

Nowhere  did  knight-errantry  prevail  more  extensively, 
perhaps,  than  in  Germany  and  there  extensive  Crusades  were 
stirred  up  against  the  heathen  of  North  Europe.  Poland 
became  Christian  about  the  end  of  the  tenth  century,  and 
its  Dukes  and  Kings  had  much  trouble  with  their  pagan 
neighbors,  including  the  Prussians,  the  Lithuanians,  the 
Livonians,  and  the  Esthonians — all  of  whom  were  idola- 
trous, and  by  whom  Poland  was  cut  off  almost  entirely  from 
the  Baltic. 

In  the  reign  of  Frederick  II,  of  Germany  (1212-1250), 
there  was  established  the  order  of  Teutonic  Knights,  who  at 


208  WAR   OR   A    UNITKD    WORLD 

first  were  invited  to  aid  the  Polish  princes  against  the  heaihen 
Prussians;  but  later,  under  their  Grand  Master,  Herman  of 
Salza,  were  commissioned  by  the  Emperor  and  Pope  Greg- 
ory the  Ninth — who  preached  a  Crusade  against  Prussia — 
to  conquer  and  settle  that  country.  They  carried  out  these 
instructions  and  another  order  of  Knights  arose  in  1237, 
who  joined  the  Teutonic  Knights  and  established  themselves 
in  Livonia.  The  wars  of  these  Knights  were  called  Holy 
Wars,  and  fighting  men  of  all  nations  joined  their  armies 
to  fight  against  the  heathens  just  as  they  had  formerly  joined 
to  fight  against  the  Turks.  But  according  to  history  the 
Knights  were  often  a  greater  menace  to  those  whom  they 
were  supposed  to  help  than  they  were  to  those  whom  they 
fought  against. 

The  Hapsburg,  or  Hawk's  Castle,  built  in  the  eleventh 
century,  is  still  standing  on  a  rocky  bluff  in  the  small  can- 
ton of  Aargan,  Switzerland,  which  in  the  year  1232  was 
the  baronial  possession  of  Albert,  fourth  Count  of  Haps- 
burg. As  the  historian  Abbott  tells  us :  "Religious  fanati- 
cism and  military  ambition  were  then  the  two  great  powers 
which  ruled  the  human  soul ;"  and  accordingly  Albert,  at  the 
head  of  thirty  steel-clad  warriors,  with  nodding  plumes  and 
waving  banners,  amid  the  sounding  of  bugles  and  clatter  of 
horse-hoofs,  left  his  ancestral  castle  to  go  to  the  Holy  Land 
and  fight  the  Saracens,  but  never  returned.  He  died  at 
Askalon  in  1240. 

His  oldest  son,  Rhodolph,  or  Rudolf,  was  twenty-two 
years  of  age  at  his  father's  death.  As  heir  of  the  ancestral 
castle,  surrounded  as  he  was  by  barons  of  greater  wealth 
and  power,  styled  by  certain  historians  "Robber  Barons," 
Rudolf  felt  compelled  to  pursue  the  same  course  as  others 
and  increase  his  fortune  by  force  of  arms.  He  organized  a 
military  corps  by  which  he  extended  his  territory  and  some- 


GERMANY   AND    PRUSSIA  209 

times  extorted  money.  In  1245  he  strengthened  himself 
still  more  by  marriage  with  Gertrude,  the  beautiful  daughter 
of  the  Count  of  Hohenberg,  receiving  with  his  bride  the 
Castle  of  Oeltingen    and  adjacent  lands. 

In  1253,  Rudolf  headed  a  band  of  steel-clad  warriors  in 
a  midnight  attack  upon  the  city  of  Basle,  in  which  foray  a 
nunnery  was  set  on  fire.  For  this  Rudolf  was  excommu- 
nicated by  the  Pope,  a  blow  at  that  time  from  which  even  a 
king  might  not  recover.  To  retrieve  himself  Rudolf 
plunged  into  a  war  against  the  barbarous  Prussians,  against 
whom  the  Pope  had  published  a  Crusade.  This  course  soon 
changed  the  papal  disposition  toward  Rudolf,  and  his  ex- 
communication seems  to  have  been  revoked ;  for  he  and  the 
Pope  were  soon  on  good  terms.  Then  he  aided  the  city  of 
Strasbourg  in  a  war  against  their  bishop  and  the  city  gave 
him  an  extensive  territory  and  raised  a  monument  to  him 
by  way  of  recompense.  Rudolf  also  becoming  guardian  of 
his  niece,  only  daughter  of  his  younger  brother,  who  died, 
he  came  thereby  into  possession  of  a  large  domain,  including 
the  counties  of  Kyburg,  Leutzburg,  and  Baden. 

His  desire  for  control  increased  with  his  possessions. 
Though  he  would  never  stoop  to  ordinary  robbery,  as  was 
the  custom  of  the  barons  around  him,  and  though  he  cleared 
the  highways  of  the  bandits  that  infested  them,  he  did  at- 
tack and  capture  various  castles.  He  thus  gained  a  wide 
reputation  for  justice  as  well  as  prowess;  and  the  name  of 
Rudolf  of  Hapsburg  became  greatly  respected,  because  the 
sole  idea  of  greatness  which  then  dominated  the  world  was 
military  strength.  He  was  chosen  chief  of  the  moun- 
taineers of  Uri,  Schweitz  and  Underwalden ;  and  made  pre- 
fect of  the  City  of  Zurich;  while  the  trained  bands  of  the 
mountains  and  troops  of  the  city  were  equally  ready  to  do 
his  bidding. 


210  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

An  alliance  of  barons  was  formed  to  crush  him,  but  he 
overthrew  the  latter  so  quickly  where  their  forces  met  in 
one  of  the  valleys  of  Zurich,  and  took  one  strong  castle 
after  another  so  rapidly,  that  they  declared  him  invincible. 
The  haughty  Bishop  of  Basle,  whose  palace  and  possessions 
were  across  the  Rhine,  and  who  controlled  many  barons, 
demanded  the  withdrawal  and  submission  of  Rudolf,  not 
dreaming  he  would  dare  to  cross  the  river.  But,  construct- 
ing a  bridge  of  boats,  Rudolf  crossed  the  Rhine,  put  the 
troops  of  the  Bishop  to  flight,  and  burned  the  grain  in  his 
fields.  His  Reverence  humbly  sued  for  peace,  which  Rudolf 
granted  on  terms  satisfactory  to  himself  and  went  into  camp 
with  his  men. 

That  night  he  was  awakened  by  a  messenger,  who  in- 
formed him  that  he  had  been  elected  Emperor  of  Germany. 

As  neither  Alphonso  nor  Ottocar  would  acknowledge 
Rudolf's  election,  the  latter  sent  a  messenger  asking  Pope 
Gregory's  aid,  who  pledged  his  support.  This  silenced  Al- 
phonso, but  not  Ottocar,  who  would  not  even  submit  to  an 
order  of  the  Diet  sitting  at  Augsburg,  but  insisted  that  "a 
man  excommunicated  for  burning  a  convent  was  unfit  for 
Emperor !" 

Ottocar  was  veteran  of  many  battles,  and  his  possessions 
extended  from  the  borders  of  Bavaria  to  Raab  in  Hungary, 
and  from  the  Adriatic  to  the  Baltic.  The  German  barons 
were  not  inclined  to  be  loyal  to  Rudolf,  and  his  following 
as  Count  of  Hapsburg  was  small.  He  secured  the  earnest 
support  of  the  Duke  of  Slavonia  by  giving  him  one  of  his 
daughters  in  marriage;  the  Count  of  Tyrol's  support  was 
gained  through  the  marriage  of  Rudolf's  son  Albert  to  his 
daughter  Margaret;  and  by  the  marriage  of  his  daughter 
Hedrige  to  Henry's  son  Otho  he  gained  the  active  aid  of 
Henry  of  Bavaria, — thus  following  the  ancient  royal  custom 


GERMANY   AND    PRUSSIA  211 

of  putting  one's  large  family  to  strategetical  and  political,  as 
well  as  military,  uses. 

Ottocar  tried  to  save  Vienna  by  a  forced  march  through 
the  Bohemian  mountains,  but  Rudolf  was  there  before  him 
with  his  army,  and  the  city  capitulated  (1273).  Meanwhile 
the  Pope  had  excommunicated  Ottocar,  who  sued  for  peace. 
Ottocar  was  obliged  to  give  up  the  provinces  of  Styria,  Ca- 
rinthia,  Carniola  and  Windischmark,  and  take  an  oath  of 
allegiance  to  the  Emperor.  Then  Rudolf  gave  another 
daughter  in  marriage  to  a  son  of  Ottocar.  This  oath  of 
fealty  was  taken  by  Ottocar  on  the  island  of  Lobau,  in  the 
Danube,  in  the  presence  of  his  own  escort  of  Bohemian 
nobles  and  Rudolf's  entire  army  November  26,  1276,  after 
which  the  Pope  withdrew  his  sentence  of  excommunication. 
But  there  was  one  factor  Ottocar  had  not  reckoned  with — 
his  wife,  Cunegunda.  By  her  taunts  and  reproaches  she 
forced  Ottocar  to  violate  his  oath,  who  refused  to  execute 
the  treaty,  imprisoned  Rudolf's  daughter  in  a  convent,  sent 
the  Emperor  an  insulting  letter,  and  made  such  extensive 
preparations  for  war  that  the  citizens  of  Vienna,  as  well  as 
Rudolf  himself,  became  alarmed.  Though  Rudolf's  forces 
were  greatly  outnumbered,  their  armies  met  on  the  plains 
of  Murchfield,  August  26,  1278,  where  a  terrific  battle  en- 
sued, in  which  Ottocar  was  slain.  Cunegunda  submitted, 
and  her  son,  Prince  Wenceslaus,  married  Rudolf's  daughter 
Judith,  while  Rudolf's  second  son  Rudolf  married  Cune- 
gunda's  daughter  Agnes. 

Rudolf  had  three  sons  and  seven  daughters,  but  one  son 
was  drowned  and  the  second  died  in  1290,  before  his  only 
child,  Johann,  was  born.  Rudolf,  though  he  founded  the 
House  of  Hapsburg  in  Austria,  and  though  he  was  called 
Kaiser,  was  never  crowned  emperor  of  Rome.  He  tried  to 
have  this  ceremony  conferred  upon  his  son  Albert  during 


212  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

his  own  lifetime,  but  at  the  time  of  Rudolf's  death,  in  July, 
1291,  this  had  not  been  done. 

The  electors  made  Adolphus  of  Nassau  Rudolf's  succes- 
sor, and  this  led  to  a  war  and  a  great  battle  near  Wirms  in 
1298,  between  him  and  Albert,  where  Adolphus  was  slain 
by  Albert,  who  was  then  crowned  king.  Various  wars  oc- 
curred in  his  reign  and  the  heroic  acts  of  William  Tell,  the 
archer  of  Uri,  are  supposed  to  have  happened  when  Albert's 
delegate,  Gessler,  was  governor  at  Altdorf  in  Switzerland. 
Albert  was  assassinated  by  his  nephew,  Johann,  in  1308. 

At  this  time  Philip  of  France  had  forced  Pope  Clement  V 
to  live  at  Avignon,  and  kept  him  practically  under  his  con- 
trol. At  Philip's  command,  Clement  ordered  the  German 
electors  to  choose  Charles,  Count  of  Valois,  his  own  brother. 
But  the  electors  refused,  nor  would  they  elect  another  of  the 
Hapsburgs. 

They  chose  Henry  VII,  who  is  said  to  have  taken  Charle- 
magne, Barbarossa  and  Frederick  II  for  his  models.  He 
decided  to  free  Italy  from  French  rule,  but  was  forced  to 
first  look  after  Bohemia,  where  Henry  of  Carinthia,  elected 
King  in  defiance  of  the  late  Emperor  Albert,  had  proved  a 
cruel  tyrant.  Henry's  son,  John,  a  boy  of  fourteen,  married 
Elizabeth,  sister  of  Wenzel,  the  last  King  of  Bohemia,  and 
the  people  united  to  expel  the  Carinthian,  while  Henry 
crossed  the  Alps.  This  was  in  the  year  1310,  and  the 
Ghibellines  of  Italy  flocked  to  his  standard,  among  them  the 
poet,  Dante,  who  celebrated  Henry  in  his  verse.  Unfor- 
tunately, he  went  into  winter  quarters  at  Genoa  in  1311,  and 
Robert  of  Naples,  taking  advantage  of  his  slowness,  sent 
an  army  to  Rome.  Henry,  with  but  two  thousand  men, 
marched  against  him  and  was  defeated,  and,  while  waiting 


GERMANY   AND    PRUSSIA  213 

for  reinforcements,  was  poisoned  by  a  monk,  and  died  sud- 
denly August  24,  1313. 

Five  Ghibelline  electors,  with  John  of  Luxemburg  at  their 
head,  now  chose  Louis  of  Bavaria  as  king,  while  the  Guelph 
electors  chose  Frederick  the  Fair,  Duke  of  Austria. '  The 
contest  was  decided  by  the  battle  of  Muhldorf,  near  Salz- 
burg (1322),  in  favor  of  Louis.  As  the  latter  refused  to 
appear  before  the  Pope  at  Avignon,  the  whole  German  Em- 
pire was  placed  under  an  interdict.  This  caused  Louis  to 
proceed  to  Italy  in  1327,  where  he  assumed  the  iron  crown 
at  Milan,  issued  a  ban  against  the  King  of  Naples,  and  de- 
posed the  Pope,  placing  a  Minorite  monk  in  the  papal  chair 
as  Nicholas  V   and  having  the  latter  crown  him  at  Rome. 

The  Minorites,  a  branch  of  the  Franciscans,  supported 
Louis,  but  none  of  the  other  orders,  and  in  Frankfort  and 
other  cities  Louis  deprived  all  the  clergy  who  refused  to  sup- 
port him  of  their  cures.  The  deposed  Pope  retaliated  by 
excommunicating  Louis. 

This  did  not  deter  Louis  from  holding  a  great  diet  at 
Reuse,  on  the  Rhine,  where  the  assembled  princes  declared 
the  Roman  emperor  to  be  the  highest  power  on  earth,  and  to 
be  rightly  chosen  by  the  electors  of  Germany.  Louis  then, 
as  spiritual  head,  dissolved  the  marriage  of  Margaret  Maul- 
tasche  (wide-mouth),  heiress  of  the  Tyrol,  with  the  son  of 
King  John  of  Bohemia,  and  married  her  to  his  second  son 
Louis.    He  also  made  another  son  Count  of  Holland. 

Louis  was  the  last  emperor  to  suffer  excommunication, 
and  in  his  case  the  influence  of  Philip  of  France  and  Pope 
John  XXII,  was  potent  enough  to  cause  Charles,  son  of  the 
King  of  Bohemia,  to  be  elected  in  his  place;  shortly  after- 
wards Louis  died  when  on  a  bear  hunt. 

The  King  of  France  and  the  Pope  now  assumed  control 
over  the  new  Emperor  of  Germany.     But  as  a  warrior  the 


214  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

latter  did  not  prove  very  heroic.  At  the  battle  of  Crecy 
(1346)  he  was  the  first  to  flee,  while  his  blind  old  father, 
King  John,  spurred  his  horse  into  the  thickest  of  the  fight 
and  was  slain.  Edward,  the  Black  Prince,  captured  his 
shield  with  its  motto,  "Ich  dien"  (I  serve),  and  this  has  been 
the  motto  of  the  Prince  of  Wales  ever  since. 

The  Roman  people,  in  the  absence  of  the  Pope  at  Avignon, 
rose  against  the  nobility  and  established  a  republic,  of  which 
Cola  di  Rienzi  was  elected  as  Tribune.  Charles,  in  his  visit 
to  Rome,  instead  of  approving  of  this  liberal  movement,  as 
Rienzi  expected,  seized  him  and  gave  him  over  to  the  Pope. 

Charles  is  chiefly  remembered  from  his  "golden  bull,"  fix- 
ing the  number  of  German  electors  at  seven,  three  spiritual — 
Mayence,  Cologne  and  Trieves — and  four  temporal — Bohe- 
mia, Brandenburg,  Saxe  Wittenberg  and  the  Palatinate  of 
the  Rhine. 

The  son  of  Charles,  Wenceslaus,  during  his  reign  (1378- 
1400),  took  no  heed  of  Italian  affairs  or  Germany's  either, 
but  kept  always  in  Bohemia.  He  was  a  drunkard  and  a 
cunning  lunatic,  who  committed  many  murders  on  slight 
provocation.  Count  Robert,  or  Reupert,  of  the  Palatinate, 
did  little  to  redeem  the  royal  authority  during  his  reign 
(1400-1410).  An  attempt  he  made  in  conjunction  with 
Leopold  II,  King  of  Austria,  to  force  his  way  through  Italy 
to  Rome,  resulted  in  a  defeat  of  their  armies  at  Brescia,  Leo- 
pold being  taken  prisoner.  Robert  returned  to  the  Palatinate 
and  died  in  1411.  This  Leopold  was  the  second  son  of  Leo- 
pold I  of  Austria,  who  fought  the  Swiss  League  at  Sem- 
pach,  July  9,  1396,  and  was  defeated  in  the  battle  in  which 
Arnold  of  Winkelried  heroically  threw  himself  against  the 
bristling  spears  and  perished. 

Sigismund,  chosen  king  in  1410,  was  crowned  emperor  in 
1433.    At  that  time  he  was  Margrave  of  Brandenburg  and 


GERMANY   AND    PRUSSIA  215 

King  of  Hungary,  and  later  became  King  of  Bohemia.  Dur- 
ing his  reign  the  Hussite  wars  occurred,  John  Huss  and 
Jerome  of  Prague  being  burned  alive  at  the  stake  (1436). 

With  the  election  of  Albert  II  of  Austria,  Sigismund's 
son-in-law  (1438-39),  the  Hapsburg  line  secured  the  im- 
perial throne  again.  Albert  died  the  next  year  and  another 
Austrian  prince,  Frederick,  Duke  of  Styria,  was  elected.  He 
was  the  last  monarch  to  be  crowned  emperor  at  Rome,  an 
event  which  occurred  in  1452.  From  the  time  of  Sigismund, 
when  the  connection  between  the  empire  and  Hungary  be- 
gan, Germany  took  on  a  new  character.  Only  princes  of  ac- 
knowledged power  were  now  elected,  and  always  from  the 
House  of  Austria. 

The  Italian  cities,  over  which  the  empire  was  supposed  to 
dominate,  were  coming  into  prominence,  and  the  political  in- 
fluence of  the  Popes  had  to  be  reckoned  with.  Milan,  Venice, 
Pisa,  Florence,  Genoa  and  other  towns  had  reigning  dukes 
and  governments  of  their  own,  and  sometimes,  as  in  ancient 
Greece,  one  city  controlled  another. 

Though  the  Council  of  Constance  had  declared  itself  su- 
perior to  the  Popes,  this  was  not  conceded  by  all  authorities, 
and  the  papal  influence  is  regarded  as  having  been  quite  as 
potent  in  temporal  affairs  as  the  spiritual.  Says  Freeman: 
"We  may  look  on  the  Popes  as  undoubted  temporal  princes 
of  Rome.  They  were  gradually  able  to  bring  under  their 
power  all  that  part  of  Italy,  stretching  from  one  sea  to  the 
other,  over  which  they  professed  to  have  rights  by  the  grants 
of  various  kings  and  emperors.  The  later  Popes  of  the  fif- 
teenth century  must  be  looked  on  as  little  more  than  Italian 
princes,  and  many  of  them  were  among  the  very  worst  of 
the  Italian  princes.  Some  of  them,  like  Nicholas  V,  did  some 
good  by  way  of  encouraging  learning,  and  Pius  II,  who 
reigned  from  1458  to  1464,  and  who  is  famous  as  a  writer 


216  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

by  his  former  name  of  Aenas  Silvius,  tried,  like  Gregory  X, 
to  get  the  Christian  princes  to  join  in  a  crusade  for  the  de- 
liverance of  the  East.  But  Sixtus  V  and  Innocent  VIII 
were  among  the  worst  of  the  Popes,  thinking  of  nothing  ex- 
cept increasing  their  temporal  power  and  advancing  their 
own  families." 

About  this  time  the  Turks  were  becoming  the  terror  of 
Christendom.  They  had  overrun  Asia  Minor,  crossed  the 
Hellespont  and  established  themselves  firmly  in  Europe, 
gaining  possession  of  Bulgaria,  Servia,  Bosnia  and  portions 
of  Hungary.  Ladislaus  IV,  King  of  Hungary,  was  killed  in 
an  attempt  to  repel  them  in  1440.  They  occupied  Adrianople 
in  1361,  under  the  leadership  of  their  Sultan,  Amurath,  and 
made  it  the  Ottoman  capital.  Their  successes  were  in  a 
measure  due  to  their  custom  of  capturing  Christian  children 
and  bringing  them  up  as  soldiers,  called  Janissaries  (new 
soldiers).  They  were  so  well  trained  as  to  overcome  all 
enemies,  and  it  was  largely  due  to  the  invasion  of  another 
branch  of  Mohammedans,  the  followers  of  Timour,  that 
Europe  was  relieved  of  the  terror  inspired  by  the  chief  of  the 
Ottoman  Turks  known  as  Bojazet  the  Thunderbolt,  who  be- 
came their  leader  in  1389.  In  1402  Timour  encountered  the 
forces  of  Bajazet  in  a  fierce  battle  at  Angora  and  took  him 
prisoner,  thus  giving  eastern  Europe  a  breathing  spell. 

May  29,  1453,  Constantinople,  capital  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire of  the  East,  which  had  really  been  Greek  since  1260, 
when  it  was  recovered  from  the  Latins  by  Michael  Paleolo- 
gus,  first  of  the  Greek  emperors,  was  taken  by  the  Turks 
under  Mahomet  II,  their  first  emperor. 

Three  bands  of  Turks,  of  10,000  each,  overran  now  the 
states  bordering  on  Hungary  and  penetrated  into  Illyria  as 
far  as  the  city  of  Laybach.  They  burned  every  village  and 
slew  the  inhabitants.     Frederick  the  emperor,  seemed  indif- 


GERMANY   AND    PRUSSIA  217 

ferent  to  the  danger,  but  the  barons  of  Carniola  gathered  an 
army  of  20,000  men  and  drove  the  Turks  back  to  the  Bos- 
phorus.  The  Turks  had  slain,  however,  6,000  Christians  and 
taken  away  8,000  as  captives.  A  few  years  later  a  larger 
army  of  Turks  poured  through  the  defiles  of  the  Illyrian 
mountains  like  a  volcanic  fire,  and  dragged  away  with  them 
20,000  captives,  and  these  incursions  were  continued. 

The  accession  of  Maximilian  I,  son  of  Frederick,  in  1493, 
marks  a  period  characterized  by  at  least  two  tendencies — one 
toward  national  unity  among  the  people,  and  another  toward 
the  reformation  of  practical  abuses  in  the  church.  The  em- 
pire was  divided  into  ten  circles,  each  forming  a  union.  These 
included  Austria,  Bavaria,  Franconia,  Swabia,  Upper  Rhine, 
Electoral  Rhine,  Burgundy,  Westphalia  and  Upper  and 
Lower  Saxony.  In  this  division,  Bohemia,  Silesia,  Mo- 
ravia, Lusatia  and  Prussia  were  not  included. 

A  struggle  with  France  for  the  possession  of  Upper  Italy 
began.  Louis  XII  of  France  proposed  to  Pope  Alexander 
VI  to  give  his  son,  Caesar  Borgia,  a  pension  of  $2,000  a  year 
if  the  Pope  would  assist  him  in  getting  control  of  the  Italian 
cities ;  he  also  made  specious  promises  to  each  city.  An  army 
of  22,000  crossed  the  Alps  in  1499,  and,  after  a  few  success- 
ful conflicts,  captured  Milan.  Maximilian  promised  aid,  but 
could  raise  neither  money  nor  men.  Duke  Ludovico,  who 
had  escaped  from  Milan,  succeeded  in  hiring  an  army  of 
10,000  Burgundians  and  Swiss,  with  which  he  drove  Louis 
and  his  followers  out  of  Milan  and  recovered  every  fortress 
but  one,  that  of  Novarra,  held  by  the  Chevalier  de  Bayard. 
And  it  should  be  noted  that  in  that  period  men  of  all  ranks 
were  ready  to  be  hired  as  fighting  men  in  almost  any  cause. 

The  marriage  of  Maximilian's  son  Charles  with  Joanna  of 
Spain  brought  that  kingdom  under  the  Hapsburg  line  in  the 
person  of  the  emperor's  grandson,  Charles  I  of  Spain,  elected 


218  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

Emperor  of  Germany  in  1519  with  the  name  Charles  V. 
His  military  record  includes  his  refusal  to  arrest  Luther  at 
Pope  Leo  X's  demand  (1520),  his  first  war  with  France  in 
1521,  and  his  second  war  with  France  in  1527,  in  which  the 
German  army  took  Rome  and  burned  a  part  of  the  city;  a 
third  French  war  in  1532,  and  a  fourth  French  war  in  1542. 
In  1535  Charles  led  an  attack  of  30,000  men  against  the 
Turks  in  Tunis  and  liberated  22,000  Christians  who  had  been 
languishing  in  dungeons.  He  also,  with  the  assistance  of 
Alva,  defeated  the  Protestants  at  the  battle  of  Muhlberg 
(1547). 

It  was  the  danger  he  incurred  from  the  side  of  the  French 
and  of  the  Turks  that  served  to  allay  and  defer  the  action  of 
Charles  against  the  Protestant  princes  of  Germany.  From 
1531  to  1541  the  Schmaldaldic  League  of  Protestant  Princes 
possessed  control  in  German  affairs,  and  not  till  1546  did 
Charles  find  time  to  turn  upon  them  and  break  the  power  of 
the  League,  as  he  did  at  Muhlberg,  where  the  leaders,  John 
Frederick  of  Saxony,  and  Philip  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  were 
made  prisoners.  It  was  in  1550  that  Charles  convoked  a 
commission  at  Valladolid,  Spain,  to  consider  a  question 
raised  by  the  theologians,  whether  war  was  necessary  to  a 
saving  knowledge  of  Christ. 

During  the  reign  of  Charles'  brother,  Ferdinand  I,  and  the 
latter s  son,  Maximilian  II  (1556-1576),  Germany  enjoyed 
a  period  comparatively  peaceful,  though  the  Netherlands 
were  being  drenched  with  blood,  a  happening  attributed 
largely  to  Charles'  son,  Philip  II  of  Spain.  Maximilian  was 
elected  King  of  Poland  in  1575,  and  died  not  long  after, 
some  attributing  his  demise  to  poison. 

In  1571  occurred  the  naval  battle  of  Lepanto,  with  the 
Turks,  in  which  the  combined  fleets  of  Spain,  Venice  and 


GERMANY   AND   PRUSSIA  219 

Pius  V,  under  the  command  of  Don  John  of  Austria,  prac- 
tically destroyed  the  maritime  power  of  the  Turks. 

During  the  reign  of  Rudolf  II  (1576-1612)  the  Jesuits 
were  in  control  and  the  Catholic  League  founded.  His  suc- 
cessor, Mathias  (1612-19),  was  also  guided  largely  by  the 
same  influences,  and  the  election  of  his  cousin,  Ferdinand,  in- 
tensely anti-Prostestant,  in  1617,  was  the  signal  for  the  be- 
ginning of  the  bloody  "Thirty  Years'  War,"  which  depopu- 
lated parts  of  Germany,  prostrated  its  industries,  and  reduced 
it  to  a  condition  of  almost  primitive  barbarism. 

The  battle  of  Prague  in  1620  between  the  Imperialists  and 
the  Bohemians,  in  which  the  latter  were  defeated  and  their 
king,  Frederick  V,  compelled  to  flee  to  Holland,  ruined  the 
Protestant  cause  in  Bohemia.  Other  famous  battles  of  this 
war  include  that  of  Wiesloch,  fought  in  April,  1622,  where 
Earnest  Von  Mansfeld  defeated  Count  de  Tilly,  German  mil- 
itary commander;  the  victory  of  Tilly  (1626)  over  Christian 
IV  of  Denmark,  at  Lutter;  the  surrender  of  Pomerania  to 
Gustavus  Adolphus,  1630;  the  battle  of  Lutzen  or  Lippstads, 
already  referred  to  (1632)  ;  the  victories  of  Bernhard  over 
the  Imperialists  at  Rheinfeld  (1638)  and  the  capture  of  Alt- 
Breisach  (1639);  the  capture  of  Arras,  Spain  (1640); 
Count  of  Harcourt's  victories  in  Italy  (1640-42)  ;  the  bloody 
battle  of  Nordlingen  (1645),  in  which  Mercy  was  killed, 
and  where  the  Duke  of  Enghien  put  to  rout  the  entire  im- 
perial army;  the  defeat  of  Leopold  at  Sens,  in  Artois,  by 
Conde  (1648)  ;  victories  of  Turenne  and  the  Swedes  at 
Lauingen  and  Zusmarshausen  (1648),  and  the  taking  of 
Prague  by  the  Swedish  general  Konigsmark  (1648).  It  is 
estimated  that  one-half  the  population  of  Germany  perished 
during  this  war.  Augsburg  was  reduced  from  80,000  to  18,- 
000  people ;  Saxony  lost  900,000  men  in  two  years,  and  other 
sections  suffered  in  like  ratio. 


220  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

During  the  reigns  of  Leopold  I  (1658-1705),  Joseph  I 
(1705-11),  and  Charles  VI  (1711-40),  the  aggressions  of 
Louis  XIV  had  to  be  continually  opposed  by  the  empire. 
Louis'  gold  had  its  influence  in  the  taking  over  of  Strasburg 
by  the  French  in  1680  and  the  adding  of  Luxemburg  by  the 
settlement  with  Leopold.  Leopold's  cruelty  as  well  as  weak- 
ness was  shown  later  when  he  put  to  death  a  large  number 
of  Hungarian  nobles  for  conspiracy  and  sold  250  Lutheran 
ministers  as  galley  slaves  on  a  similar  charge.  The  people 
rebelled  and  unwisely  invoked  the  assistance  of  the  Turks, 
who  entered  Hungary  with  280,000  men  under  Kara  Musta- 
pha.  They  advanced  to  Vienna,  but  were  checked  by  a  small 
army  of  Hungarians  under  Tekeli.  After  two  months  Count 
Stabrenberg,  the  commandant,  after  sending  up  rockets  for 
three  days  to  signal  his  distress,  was  on  the  point  of  sur- 
rendering, when  the  Polish  king,  John  Sobuiski,  arrived 
with  his  army  and  drove  the  Turks  away. 

Leopold  did  not  welcome  Sobuiski,  and  put  hundreds  of 
the  Hungarians  to  death.  Meanwhile  the  army  of  Louis 
XIV,  sent  into  the  Palatinate  to  secure  that  territory  for 
France,  was  treating  the  inhabitants  there  with  no  less 
cruelty.  Under  General  Melac,  Worms,  Mannheim,  Oppen- 
heim,  Baden  and  other  towns  were  burnt  and  citizens  treated 
with  merciless  brutality. 

The  intrigues  of  France  and  French  agents  at  this  time 
created  such  alarm  in  Germany  that  a  diet  was  held  at  Ratis- 
bon  to  prohibit  intercourse  with  France,  and  an  alliance  was 
formed  with  England  and  Spain  against  that  nation.  In 
1692,  William  III  of  England,  in  command  of  the  forces  of 
the  allies,  was  defeated  at  Steinkirk,  though  he  managed  to 
conduct  a  masterly  retreat,  and  the  French  blew  up  the  Castle 
of  Heidelberg  by  way  of  revenge.  The  treaty  of  Ryswyck 
gave  France  all  its  German  holdings,  except  Lorraine,  the 


GERMANY    AND    PRUSSIA  221 

Palatinate,  and  Philipsburg.  In  the  war  of  the  Spanish  Suc- 
cession (1401-14)  the  German  states  came  into  conflict  with 
each  other.  The  electors  of  Cologne  and  Bavaria  sided  with 
the  Pope,  and  the  Dukes  of  Saxony  and  Mantau,  in  favor  of 
Louis'  candidate,  Philip  of  Anjou;  Hanover,  having  been 
granted  an  electoral  hat,  firmly  supported  Austria's  heir; 
Saxony,  though  favorable  to  the  emperor,  was  occupied  in  a 
struggle  with  the  Poles,  and  Ferdinand  III  of  Brandenburg 
supported  Austria,  because  of  having  been  granted  the  title 
of  the  "King  of  Prussia." 

The  first  account  that  we  have  of  the  Hohenzollerns,  is  to 
the  effect  that  they  occupied  a  castle  on  the  hill  of  Zollern,  in 
Wurtemburg,  and  the  first  mention  of  their  name  is  in  the 
closing  years  of  the  eleventh  century.  "Hohen"  means 
"high,"  and  "Zollern"  mean  "taxes."  The  Hohenzollerns 
belonged  to  the  class  of  petty  independent  or  quasi  indepen- 
dent princes  who  swarmed  in  Germany  at  this  period,  ac- 
knowledging no  superiors  and  who  did  what  seemed  good 
in  their  own  eyes.  The  principal  sources  of  revenue  for  these 
robber  barons  was  the  plunder  of  traveling  merchants  and 
traders  who  were  unfortunate  enough  to  fall  into  their  hands. 

The  family  comes  into  prominence  in  1415,  when  Freder- 
ick of  Nuremburg  secured  by  purchase  from  Sigismund,  Em- 
peror of  Germany,  the  territory  of  Brandenburg  and  became 
Margrave  of  Brandenburg  and  elector  of  the  empire,  as 
Frederick  I.  His  dominion  consisted  of  10,000  square  miles 
of  sandy  plain  interspersed  with  fertile  districts.  It  was 
popularly  described  as  "the  sand  box  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire."  The  population  was  originally  sear  and  rather 
scanty. 

Frederick  Wilhelm,  or  "The  Great  Elector,"  succeeded  in 
1640.  His  political  and  military  genius  made  him  an  ex- 
ception to  the  reigning  sovereigns  of  his  time.    He  was  sue- 


222  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

cessful  in  war,  in  peace  and  in  intrigue.  His  territory  and 
influence  were  largely  augmented  by  the  treaty  of  West- 
phalia, 1648,  at  the  close  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War.  It  was 
the  energy  and  sagacity  of  the  great  elector  which  laid  the 
foundation  of  what  afterwards  became  the  kingdom  of  Prus- 
sia. He  owed  his  success  to  the  almost  exclusive  personal 
care  and  attention  which  he  paid  to  his  little  army.  Ever 
since  his  day  it  has  been  the  tradition  of  the  Hohenzollerns 
to  give  to  the  army  the  first  consideration.  At  the  death  of 
the  great  elector,  Brandenburg  was  inferior  to  Austria  alone 
among  the  states  of  the  empire.  From  1640  to  1688  its 
area  increased  to  40,000  square  miles,  its  revenue  multiplied 
seven- fold,  and  its  small  army  was  unsurpassed  for  efficiency. 
Frederick  found  Brandenburg  a  constitutional  state  where 
the  legislative  power  was  shared  by  the  Diet  with  the  Elector. 
He  left  it  to  his  successor  substantially  an  absolute  monarchy 
and  such  Prussia  has  ever  since  remained. 

In  1701  Frederick  III,  son  of  the  Great  Elector,  put  a 
crown  on  his  own  head,  and  Brandenburg  became  king  "in 
Prussia,"  as  Frederick  I. 

He  crowned  himself  because  the  territory  in  which  he  was 
recognized  as  king  did  not  lie  within  the  bounds  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire.  Prussia  bordered  on  Russia  and  from 
henceforward  there  has  been  mutual  jealousy  and  distrust 
between  Prussia  and  Russia. 

To  the  above-mentioned  king  succeeded  (1713)  Frederick 
Wilhelm  I,  famed  in  story  for  his  vulgarity  and  brutality,  the 
father  of  Frederick  the  Great.  But  Frederick  William  pos- 
sessed executive  ability  of  a  high  order.  He  hoarded  money 
and  had  a  well  filled  treasury.  As  a  Hohenzollern,  his  first 
care  was  his  army.  He  employed  every  available  plan  he 
could  conceive  of  to  increase  its  efficiency.  He  was  the  first 
to  employ  iron  ramrods  for  his  muskets,  and  Prussia  has 


GERMANY    AND    PRUSSIA  223 

ever  since  been  on  the  lookout  for  improvements  in  arms 
which  would  make  her  superior  to  all  her  rivals.  Frederick 
William  I,  by  husbanding  his  finances  and  applying  them  to 
military  purposes,  was  able  to  keep  on  foot  one  of  the  largest 
and  best  trained  armies  in  Europe.  It  was  a  veritable  "war 
machine."  He  was  an  absolute  monarch,  and  his  ministers 
were  rather  clerks  for  registering  his  decrees.  What  was 
known  as  civil  liberty  in  England  was  not  dreamed  of  in 
Prussia.  Frederick  William  conquered  Pomerania,  and, 
Sweden  disappearing  from  the  ranks  of  the  Great  Powers, 
Prussia  was  left  without  a  rival  in  northern  Germany. 

During  his  reign  the  revenues  of  Prussia  were  doubled 
and  he  left  a  treasury  of  9,000,000  thalers  and  an  army  of 
85,000  men.  Though  only  the  twelfth  of  European  states 
in  extent  of  territory  and  population,  Prussia  ranked  fourth 
in  military  power.  The  army  was  the  all  in  all,  and  its  dis- 
cipline was  of  the  strictest.  The  maxims  of  the  king  were 
money  for  the  army,  the  army  for  conquest,  conquest  for 
expansion,  expansion  for  more  money  for  a  greater  army, 
for  still  further  expansion. 

These  principles  of  policy  were  inherited  by  his  son,  Fred- 
erick the  Great,  and  have  ever  since  directed  the  efforts  of 
the  house  of  Hohenzollern.  Industry  and  commerce  were 
for  the  most  part  left  to  take  care  of  themselves  or  made 
subsidiary  to  military  purposes.  With  the  same  end  in  view, 
science  has  been  cultivated.  Frederick  the  Great  despised 
German  literature  and  surrounded  himself  with  French  sa- 
vants. German  literature  and  philosophy  grew  up  entirely 
independent  of  royal  assistance.  Kant  was  silenced  and 
Fichte,  who  was  expelled  from  his  chair  for  his  democratic 
learning,  was  called  to  Berlin  when  his  help  was  needed  to 
serve  the  German  people  against   Napoleon.     Hegel  was 


224  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

called  to  Berlin  because  he  was  an  absolutist  in  politics  and 
became  a  moral  police  scavenger  for  the  reaction. 

When  the  Seven  Years'  War  broke  out,  in  1756,  Frederick 
had  an  army  of  150,000  men  and  a  portion  of  eleven  million 
thalers.  Of  the  850,000  soldiers  who  perished  in  this  war 
about  180,000  fell  while  in  the  service  of  Prussia.  The 
Hohenzollerns  have  been  lavish  of  the  blood  of  their  sub- 
jects. Prussia  emerged  from  this  conflict  a  first-class  mili- 
tary power.  But  the  gross  population  had  decreased  to  the 
extent  of  half  a  million  souls  and  the  misery  and  poverty  of 
the  people  were  almost  incalculable. 

While  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  Frederick  did  many  things 
to  improve  the  condition  of  his  people,  it  remains  true  that 
the  old  system  of  rigid  social  privilege  was  still  maintained 
and  impassable  barriers  divided  the  noble  from  the  citizen 
and  the  citizen  from  the  peasant.  And  the  same  relation 
still  exists  between  the  Prussian  Junker  and  the  bourgeoisie. 
The  government  was  a  personal  despotism.  Breslau  was 
ceded  to  Prussia  in  1741,  Silesia  and  Glatz  added  in  1742, 
and  in  1772  Frederick  shared  in  the  crime  of  the  division  of 
Poland,  which  had  the  effect  of  doubling  the  area  of  Prus- 
sia. He  died  in  1786,  having  increased  his  territory  to  75,- 
000  square  miles,  with  an  annual  revenue  of  20,000,000 
thalers,  and  a  population  of  five  and  a  half  millions. 

After  the  settlement  in  1815  Prussia  played  a  secondary 
role  in  foreign  politics  until  Bismarck  came  to  the  helm  in 
1862.  The  victory  of  Prussia  over  Austria  in  1866,  and 
the  incorporation  of  Schleswig-Holstein  to  its  own  terri- 
tory, left  Prussia  the  undisputed  mistress  of  Germany.  In 
1871,  as  a  result  of  the  victory  of  Germany  over  France, 
the  King  of  Prussia  became  German  Emperor. 


KAISER  WILHELM 

EMPEKOK   OV  GERMANY 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

CAUSES  OF  THIS  WAR 

We  have  completed  our  survey  of  the  developments  in 
Europe  as  reflected  particularly  in  the  military  operations 
of  the  six  war  centers;  namely,  the  Grecian  peninsula,  the 
Italian  peninsula,  and  the  Roman  Empire,  the  Franco-Iber- 
ian peninsula,  the  British  Isles  and  the  Scandinavian  penin- 
sula, Russia,  and  Germany.  We  have  considered  the  events 
in  these  countries  mostly  as  they  took  place  from  the  earliest 
epochs  in  history  to  the  period  as  late  as  the  beginning  of 
the  twentieth  century.  We  have  been  confronted  with  a 
chain  of  wars  succeeding  each  other  in  almost  dazzling  fre- 
quency; we  have  found  countries  at  war  with  each  other 
and  at  war  with  themselves.  States  like  the  Roman  Empire 
have  developed  through  inherent  prowess  and  conquest  of 
other  races  and  states,  and  have  died  through  internal  weak- 
ening and  foreign  invasion.  The  circle  of  events  in  the 
history  of  the  states  seems  almost  determined;  on  the  one 
hand,  increase  and  expansion  through  force  of  innate  vital- 
ity and  consequent  domination  of  portions  of  the  outside 
world,  and  on  the  other,  weakening,  shrinkage  and  death, 
through  internal  corruption  and  consequent  defeat  at  the 
hands  of  the  aggressor  from  the  outside.  In  other  words, 
states  have  tended  to   realize  their  potency   and   creative 


226  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

energy  in  terms  of  warfare  and  domination  of  fellow  states, 
and  as  a  result,  have  been  compelled  to  yield,  in  their  turn, 
to  foreign  dominion,  when  their  own  vital  stock  began  to 
suffer  depletion.  Athens  grew  and,  while  growing,  swal- 
lowed up  other  Greek  principalities;  but  Athens  began  to 
grow  feeble,  and,  in  proportion  to  the  loss  of  her  strength, 
was  encroached  upon  and  conquered  by  new  aggressors. 
The  nature  of  the  conclusion  therefore  shows  the  path  of 
the  movement,  at  the  start  as  well  as  during  the  whole 
course,  to  have  been  crooked,  and  if  nations  desire  to  live 
without  having  to  suffer  at  the  hands  of  superior  neighbors, 
they  should  give  expression  to  their  inner  forces  through 
channels  other  than  those  of  aggression,  violent  conquest, 
and,  in  general,  warfare.  Nations  should  discover  channels 
carrying  the  current  in  both  directions,  so  to  speak,  and  to 
the  enrichment  of  all  the  parties  concerned,  and  should  en- 
gage in  forms  of  relationship  which  are  symmetrical,  as  in 
the  case  of  trading,  where  the  benefit  of  the  customer  does 
not  exclude  the  benefit  of  the  salesman.  But  we  are  an- 
ticipating ourselves,  and  these  reflections  properly  find  their 
place  in  the  concluding  chapter. 

Here  we  may  notice  that  time  does  not  seem  to  have  ef- 
fected any  change  in  the  points  of  view  adopted  by  national 
governments,  and  that  warfare  is  a  symptom  of  the  working 
of  the  life  of  peoples  now,  just  as  it  has  been  in  more  ancient 
times.  As  an  overwhelming  evidence  of  this  fact,  we  have 
the  Great  European  War  which  has  burst  into  the  world- 
stage  with  the  suddenness  of  a  volcanic  eruption,  and  has 
extended  its  hold  upon  the  larger  part  of  the  continent  with 
the  speed  of  lightning.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  present 
war  is  the  greatest,  most  violent,  and  most  far-reaching  in 
influence  of  all  conflicts  in  history,  but  it  is  yet  going  on, 
and  therefore,  in  this  book,  cannot  be  treated  with  any  ade- 


CAUSES   OF   THIS   WAR  227 

quacy.  Only  after  the  war  is  finished  shall  we  be  enabled 
to  see  it  in  the  proper  perspective.  But,  because  of  its  im- 
mense importance,  the  war  cannot  be  simply  passed  over. 
Hence  we  will  endeavor  to  present  the  reader  with  a  picture 
of  the  events  and  processes  which  have  anteceded  the  war, 
and  point  out  their  causal  connection  with  the  outbreak  of 
the  conflict. 

The  causal  antecedents  of  the  Great  War  may  be  divided 
into  two;  on  the  one  hand,  general  and  more  distant,  and 
on  the  other,  immediate  and  particular.  Under  the  latter 
head  come,  of  course,  the  assassination  of  the  Austrian  heir 
to  the  throne  and  such  matter  as  the  diplomatic  negotia- 
tions which  took  place  just  before  the  war  was  declared. 
But  the  more  general  antecedents  are  also  the  more  signifi- 
cant, and  it  is  these  which  should  engage  our  attention  pri- 
marily. Under  the  latter  heading  we  will  include  the  fol- 
lowing five  factors :  Franco-German  rivalry,  Anglo-German 
rivalry,  Slav-Teuton  rivalry,  the  growth  of  the  German  Em- 
pire, and  the  Near  Eastern  question.  Let  us  treat  them  in 
the  order  as  mentioned. 

(a)  The  Franco-German  rivalry,  so  far  as  we  are  con- 
cerned in  this  chapter,  reduces  itself  to  the  bad  feeling  started 
between  the  two  countries  by  the  cession  of  Alsace-Lorraine 
to  Germany  at  the  conclusion  of  the  war  of  1870.  Germany 
was  then  completely  victorious  over  France  and  practically 
dictated  her  own  terms.  Besides  exacting  an  indemnity  of 
a  billion  francs,  she  secured  for  herself  possession  of  the 
provinces  of  Alsace  and  Lorraine.  While  the  war  was  be- 
ing waged  Bismarck  had  declared  that  Metz  and  Strassburg 
were  necessary  for  the  securing  of  a  defensive  frontier  for 
Germany,  and  first  he  insisted  upon  taking  Bel  fort  as  well, 
but  M.  Thiers,  on  behalf  of  the  French  government,  made 
passionate  endeavors  to  keep  the  fortress  in  the  possession 


228  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

of  France.  Bismarck,  it  appears,  was  moved  and  he  yielded, 
and  France  paid  the  indemnity  with  less  pain,  because  she 
knew  Bel  fort  had  been  saved.  But  Alsace  and  Lorraine 
were  bound  to  go,  and  France  yielded,  despite  the  vehement 
protests  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  provinces  themselves. 

Now,  since  then,  the  fact  of  the  incorporation  of  the  said 
provinces  into  the  German  Empire  has  been  an  extremely 
potent  source  of  ill-will  and  even  hatred  on  the  part  of 
France  toward  Germany.  Bismarck  claimed  that  the  an- 
nexation was  necessary  to  the  ends  of  peace,  but  history  has 
falsified,  signally,  the  claim.  The  events  have  taught  very 
clearly  that  any  peace  which  is  secured  at  the  price  of  the 
denial  of  the  right  of  nationality,  serves  but  as  a  breathing 
spell  for  new  wars.  To  be  sure,  if  we  except  Metz,  Alsace- 
Lorraine  did  belong  at  some  ancient  time  to  Germany,  and 
it  was  only  later  acquired  by  Louis  XIV.  But  the  prime 
question  as  to  nationality  is  the  question  of  the  consciousness 
and  sentiment  of  the  people.  The  inhabitants  of  Alsace- 
Lorraine  were  French  in  sentiment  and  in  loyalty,  and  they 
have  kept  so  through  the  period  of  German  domination. 
They  possessed  a  national  self,  and  that  self  was  French  in 
soul  and  heart.  These  sentiments  of  patriotism  to  France 
have  been  but  solidified  through  the  contribution  in  terms  of 
blood  which  the  provinces  made  to  France  during  the  times 
of  the  Revolution  and  the  Napoleonic  wars. 

In  fact,  it  is  credibly  reported  that  Bismarck  himself  felt 
qualms  of  conscience  about  the  wisdom  of  the  annexation, 
but  that  his  fears  were  overruled  by  Moltke,  who  claimed 
that  the  provinces  possessed  immense  military  value  for 
Germany.  However  that  may  be,  it  is  a  fact  that  since  those 
days  the  French  people  have  felt  an  ineradicable  hatred  for, 
and  fear  of,  the  power  of  Germany,  and  within  their  hearts 
has  rankled  deep  the  intense  longing  for  the    day    of  the 


CAUSES   OF  THIS   WAR  229 

"revanche" — the  day  when  Germany  would  be  brought  to 
account.  Since  1870  the  military  policy  of  France  has  been 
largely  determined  with  the  view  of  rendering  the  country 
strong  enough  to  take  back  her  own  unto  herself. 

Then  started  a  race  in  military  equipment  between  France 
and  Germany.  In  1886  the  peace  footing  of  the  French 
army  was  raised  to  500,000.  At  that  time,  that  of  Germany 
was  427,000,  and  she  accordingly  increased  it  by  the  addition 
of  41,000.  In  1899  the  German  peace  strength  was  raised 
to  495,000,  and  in  1905  to  505,000.  In  1912  an  Army 
Bill  was  introduced  into  the  Reichstag  providing  for  further 
addition,  and  in  1913  another  Army  Act  was  passed  pro- 
viding for  the  raising  of  the  peace  strength  by  installments 
to  870,000.  Germany  justified  these  measures  by  citing  the 
fact  that  owing  to  Turkey's  defeat  by  the  Balkans,  she  had 
lost  a  possible  ally,  and  that  for  the  same  reason  Austria 
would  be  compelled  to  station  a  much  larger  army  on  her 
Balkan  frontier  to  defend  against  a  bigger  Servia,  so  that 
Germany  could  rely  on  her  ally  far  less  than  she  did  before. 
She  also  pointed  out  the  fact  that  Russia,  by  increasing 
her  military  equipment,  became  a  more  formidable  rival  than 
ever.  France,  in  reply  to  the  German  measures,  lowered  the 
age-limit  for  the  beginning  of  service  from  21  to  20  and 
extended  the  term  of  service  from  two  to  three  years. 

Meanwhile,  the  Germans  have  pursued  an  extremely  dras- 
tic and  uncompromising  policy  toward  the  annexed  prov- 
inces, with  the  result  that  the  attitude  of  resistance  on  the 
part  of  the  inhabitants  toward  the  new  government,  in- 
stead of  abating  in  force,  has,  on  the  contrary,  been  inten- 
sified. The  Germans  adopted  a  policy  which  aimed  to  de- 
nationalize the  inhabitants,  and  their  ways  have  been  the 
ways  of  violence.  The  recent  Zabern  affair  was  a  typical 
symptom  of  this  state  of  affairs.     Naturally,  by  way  of  re- 


230  WAR   OR   A   UNITED   WORLD 

action,  the  people  of  the  provinces  hardened  their  hearts 
more  against  their  rulers,  and  things  have  gone  from  bad 
to  worse.  Let  it  be  noted  that  this  situation  has  had  its 
effect  upon  French  opinion.  Trie  people  in  France,  upon 
witnessing  the  brutal  treatment  meted  out  to  their  late 
countrymen,  suffered  keenly  and  sharpened  their  weapons 
more  hurriedly  for  the  day  of  opportunity.  France  wanted 
to  be  strong  in  her  competition  with  Germany,  and  so  she 
gravitated,  during  the  years  1891-6,  toward  Russia,  with 
whom  she  formally  concluded  a  treaty  of  alliance.  And 
now  the  war  is  being  waged  in  Flanders,  in  the  annexed 
provinces  and  in  Poland,  and  the  French  are  everywhere 
proclaiming  that  the  basal  condition  for  the  conclusion  of 
peace  will  be  the  liberation  of  Alsace-Lorraine  from  the 
German  yoke. 

(b)  We  secondly  take  up  the  question  of  Anglo-German 
rivalry.  This  has  in  the  first  place  expressed  itself  in  the 
German  desire  for  colonial  expansion.  Let  us  note  that  the 
colonial  ambitions  of  Germany  are  of  quite  recent  origin  and 
growth.  It  was  the  opinion  of  Bismarck  that  colonies 
tended  to  weaken  the  forces  of  the  national  state,  in  com- 
pelling her  to  turn  her  attention  to  outside  fields  where  she 
would  be  drawn  into  quarrels  with  other  states  similarly 
clamoring  for  possession.  Bismarck,  on  the  other  hand,  en- 
couraged France  into  embarking  on  colonial  conquests,  be- 
cause he  was  of  the  opinion  that  thereby  France  would  be 
involved  in  troubles  with  other  countries.  But,  later,  Bis- 
marck changed  front,  and  since  then  Germany  has  been  per- 
sistent in  seeking  a  colonial  dominion.  Especially  when  the 
Empire  assumed  a  protectionist  regime,  in  1879,  over-pro- 
duction resulted,  and  the  business  people  began  to  clamor 
frantically  for  foreign  markets.  But  wherever  Germany 
might  turn  her  eyes    she  found  herself  anticipated  in  the 


CAUSES   OF   THIS   WAR  231 

game  by  other  states — by  France,  and  especially  England. 
Germany  felt  that  she  could  not  put  forth  the  foot  of  con- 
quest without  brushing  upon  some  British  possession  sedu- 
lously guarded  by  the  British  navy.  And  Germany  has  re- 
sented the  fact  that  her  aggressive  movements  have  been 
automatically  blocked  by  England,  and  thus  has  felt  ill 
toward  her. 

Nevertheless,  Germany  has  to  some  extent  been  success- 
ful in  her  schemes  of  colonial  expansion,  and  her  progress 
has  on  the  other  hand  bred  suspicion  in  the  breast  of  the 
British.  Putting  the  events  in  their  chronological  order,  we 
may  mention  that  Germany  was  allowed  to  possess  territory 
for  the  first  time  in  Africa  in  1885;  she  acquired  colonies 
in  the  Cameroons;  from  1884  to  1885  she  was  occupying 
German  New  Guinea,  and  from  1886  to  1890  she  was  en- 
gaged in  taking  possession  of  what  is  known  as  German 
East  Africa.  In  1897  she  acquired  Kiao-Chau,  in  China, 
and  England,  not  to  be  outdone,  occupied  the  port  of  Wei- 
ha-wei.  During  the  South  African  war  the  Kaiser  sent  his 
famous  congratulatory  telegram  to  Kruger  (1896) — an  in- 
cident which  caused  much  resentment  in  England.  Later, 
when  the  Germans  sent  the  "Panther"  to  Agadir,  thus  os- 
tentatiously proclaiming  that  France  should  take  Germany's 
wishes  into  account  as  concerns  the  occupation  of  African 
territory,  Lloyd  George,  the  British  cabinet  minister,  made 
a  speech  declaring  that  Britain  would  stand  by  France  and 
help  her,  if  necessary,  by  drawing  the  sword.  Correspond- 
ingly, this  incident  provoked  much  resentment  among  the 
Germans. 

In  the  meantime,  Germany  began  to  court  Turkey,  the 
Kaiser  visiting  the  Sultan  and  proclaiming  himself  the  pro- 
tector of  Mohammedans,  a  role  which  Britain  has  claimed 
for   herself  heretofore.     In  1898    the  Kaiser  visited  Jeru- 


232  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

salem,  and  in  1902  the  construction  of  the  Bagdad  rail- 
way was  authorized  by  the  Sublime  Porte — an  event  which 
has  been  viewed  with  growing  concern  and  suspicion  on  the 
part  of  British  statesmen.  The  ascendancy  of  Germany  in 
Turkey  has  provoked  a  feeling  of  rivalry  on  the  part  of  the 
British  as  well  as  of  the  French.  Thus,  in  general,  the  race 
for  colonial  possessions  has  tended  to  put  England  and 
Germany  at  odds  with  each  other,  Germany  claiming  that 
England  has  completely  blocked  the  way  to  her  realization 
of  legitimate  and  necessary  expansion  through  colonial  ac- 
quisition, and  England,  on  her  side,  fearing  that  Germany 
is  striving  to  grow  in  order  to  strike  at  her  successfully, 
later. 

Parallel  with  this  process  has  been  that  of  the  indus- 
trial expansion  of  Germany.  England  and  Germany  have 
been  the  foremost  states  in  industrial  production,  on  the 
continent,  and  the  competition  between  them  for  the  ac- 
quisition of  markets  has  been  acute.  Since  1879  German 
industrial  progress  has  been  very  rapid,  and  in  many  re- 
spects has  tended  to  supplant  the  produce  of  English  origin, 
in  the  universal  market.  Germany's  industrial  growth  has 
reinforced  her  demand  for  colonial  expansion  and  for  the 
discovery  of  markets  for  her  wares,  and  both  movements 
together  have  been  the  fundamental  reason  (according  to 
German  apologists)  for  her  urgent  call  for  an  enlarged  navy. 
After  all,  the  race  for  the  development  of  navies  has  been 
the  chief  factor  in  Anglo-German  rivalry,  the  factor  which 
has  made  Britain  extremely  suspicious  of  Germany  and 
fearful  of  loss  of  her  dominion,  nay,  of  her  very  existence. 
Germany,  on  her  side,  has  insisted  that  the  navy  has  been 
a  necessity  to  her  side,  for  the  purposes  of  securing  colonies 
and  protecting  them,  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  safeguarding 
her  foreign  trade,  namely,  the  trade  of  her  industries,  on 


CAUSES   OF   THIS   WAR  233 

the  other.  But  England  has  refused  to  accept  the  expla- 
nation as  sufficient  and  in  the  increase  of  the  German  navy 
has  claimed  to  perceive  a  menace  to  the  integrity  of  her  pos- 
sessions. Such  words  as  those  of  the  Kaiser :  "Our  future 
lies  upon  the  sea,"  certainly  did  not  tend  to  allay  the  mutual 
feeling  of  suspicion.  In  1898  the  first  German  Navy  law 
appeared,  and  since  then  other  modifications  have  been 
made  in  the  German  naval  programme  with  the  end  of  ac- 
celerating the  building  of  warships.  But  England  laid  down 
the  "two  keels  to  one"  programme  and  later  adopted  as  her 
standard  the  principle  that  her  navy  should  be  superior  by 
sixty  per  cent  to  that  of  any  other  power;  by  strict  adher- 
ence to  the  above  she  has  not  let  Germany  make  any  real 
headway  in  the  race.  Churchill's  proposal  for  a  naval  holi- 
day was  deemed  unacceptable  by  the  German  Imperial  Chan- 
cellor, and  so  the  race  has  proceeded  at  full  pace  and  with  no 
interruption,  the  Navy  League  in  Germany  urging  all  the 
while  more  speed  and  arousing  enthusiasm  in  the  move- 
ment. The  rivalry  has  therefore  become  more  and  more 
acute,  until  it  now  approaches  the  breaking  point  of  en- 
durance, and,  proportionally,  the  feeling  between  the  two 
states  has  assumed  a  more  violently  belligerent  character. 

(c)  Thirdly,  we  take  up  Slav-Teuton  rivalry.  It  may 
be  remembered  that  at  the  outbreak  of  this  war,  German 
apologists  gave  as  the  supreme  justification  of  their  coun- 
try's entrance  into  the  war  the  danger  from  encroachment 
by  the  Russian  Bear.  They  professed  to  discern  in  Slavism 
the  future  terrible  foe  of  Teuton  Kultur, — and  the  branding 
of  England  as  the  great  enemy  of  Germany  is  more  of  an 
afterthought  in  the  minds  of  our  apologists.  Now,  this 
state  of  affairs  is  really  not  very  old  in  origin.  During  the 
Franco-German  war  of  1870  Russia  did  nothing  to  help 
France  and  assumed  the  attitude  of  benevolent  neutrality 


234  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

toward  Germany.  Bismarck  was  instrumental  in  the  for- 
mation of  the  Three  Emperors'  League,  of  which  Germany, 
Austria,  and  Russia  were  the  members.  But  Russia  was 
decidedly  lukewarm  when  in  1875  the  Prussian  war  party 
prepared  to  pounce  upon  France  in  order  to  inflict  upon  her 
a  second  defeat;  in  fact,  Russia  interfered  in  favor  of 
France.  This  served  to  cool  German  feeling  toward  Rus- 
sia, and  in  the  Berlin  Congress  Bismarck  championed  the 
proposal  that  the  San  Stephano  treaty  should  be  annulled, 
and  was  thus  instrumental  in  depriving  Russia  of  the  spoils 
of  her  victory  over  Turkey.  This  Russia  did  not  forget, 
and  since  then  Slavs  and  Teutons  have  drifted  farther  apart. 
With  respect  to  the  Near  East,  it  has  been  Germany's  aim 
to  develop  a  Turkey  strong  enough  to  offset  the  Russian 
impetus  to  expansion  toward  the  south.  Furthermore,  the 
Austro-Geraian  alliance  has  schemed  and  intrigued  in  the 
Balkans  with  the  end  of  frustrating  all  plans  of  Russia  to 
secure  a  dominating  position  among  her  Balkan  neighbors. 
On  the  other  hand,  Russia  has  aimed  so  to  increase  her 
influence  among  the  Balkan  states  as  to  direct  the  latter  to 
resist  Teuton  aggression.  Both  parties  have  encouraged  the 
formation  of  a  Balkan  confederation  whose  policy  it  would 
be  to  oppose  either  one  of  them.  When,  in  1908,  Austria 
formally  annexed  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  and  Servia 
found  herself  almost  choked,  Russia  protested  against  the 
coup,  but  Germany  at  once  confronted  Russia  in  "shining 
armor" — in  the  words  of  the  Kaiser — and  Russia  had  to 
withdraw  the  protest.  But  Russia  scored  a  point  when,  in 
1912,  a  Balkan  League  was  formed  to  a  great  extent  under 
her  protection  and  with  her  advice, — with  the  Teuton  Allies 
kept  completely  in  the  dark  about  the  matter.  Nevertheless, 
at  the  close  of  the  first  Balkan  war,  when  the  influence  of 
Russia  seemed  supreme,  Austria  persuaded  King  Ferdinand 


CAUSES   OF   THIS   WAR  235 

of  Bulgaria  to  oppose  Serbia's  claims  of  compensation  in 
Macedonia  and  caused  the  outbreak  of  the  second  Balkan 
war,  with  the  result  of  the  dissolution  of  the  Balkan  League 
and  the  giving  again  to  the  Teutons  of  the  preponderance 
of  influence  in  the  Balkans.  Indeed,  if  Dr.  Dillon  (see  his 
work  "The  Scrap  of  Paper")  is  to  be  credited,  the  present 
war  originated  from  incidents  of  the  Teuton-Slav  rivalry 
upon  the  field  of  the  Balkans ;  thus,  according  to  Dr.  Dillon, 
Austria's  intention  in  sending  the  well-known  ultimatum  to 
Serbia  in  the  middle  of  1914  was  to  provoke  a  war  by 
which  to  crush  Serbia,  thus  to  diminish  Russia's  prestige  in 
the  Balkans  (since  Serbia  was  a  protege  of  Russia)  and  to 
succeed  in  compelling  the  rest  of  the  Balkan  States  to  form 
a  coalition  for  the  purpose  of  resisting  the  encroachments 
of  Russia. 

(d)  Fourthly,  we  may  notice  German  aggressiveness  as 
such.  The  victory  of  the  Germans  over  the  French  in  1870, 
and  the  crowning  of  the  Prussian  king  as  Emperor  in  Paris, 
gave  the  Germans  a  vast  impetus  to  growth  in  every  respect. 
Germany  has  been  making  enormous  progress  so  far  as  the 
amount  of  her  population  is  concerned.  We  append  the  fol- 
lowing figures  as  to  her  population  (taken  from  Rose's  "The 
Origin  of  the  War,"  p.  48)  : 

1871 41,400,000  of  inhabitants 

1890 49,714,000  " 

1900 56,000,000  " 

1913 66,000,000  " 

The  increase  in  population  has  been  accompanied  by  a 
tremendous  outburst  of  vital  energy,  which  Germany  has 
used  efficiently  in  the  development  of  her  internal  resources 
both  in  agriculture  and  in  industry.  What  is  much  more 
important,  all  these  movements  have  tended  to  produce  in 
the  German  people  an  intensely  violent,  even  chauvinistic, 


236  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORU) 

national  consciousness.  Germany  suddenly  felt  that  she 
had  been  divinely  appointed  to  perform  a  great  task  in  the 
world,  that  she  was  entrusted  with  the  mission  of  civilizing 
the  world  by  implanting  her  own  Kultur  in  the  hearts  of  all 
the  peoples.  And  so  was  evolved  German  "welt-politik,"  or 
world-policy,  pointing  to  the  establishment  of  a  world-em- 
pire with  Germany  at  the  head.  The  symptoms  of  this  ten- 
dency appear  first  in  the  movement  toward  expansion — 
which  we  have  already  noted — by  the  acquisition  of  colonies. 
Germany's  population  overflowed  her  borders  and  she  locked 
for  further  land  to  occupy.  She  turned  to  China  and  oc- 
cupied Kiao-Chau;  then  she  turned  to  South  America  and 
sent  a  large  number  of  immigrants  to  Brazil ;  but,  owing  to 
the  Monroe  doctrine,  she  has  been  unable  to  convert  the  com- 
mercial penetration  into  political  possession.  At  the  same 
time,  she  turned  in  the  direction  of  Africa,  and  her  move- 
ments there  brought  her  into  conflict  repeatedly  with  France, 
and,  indirectly,  with  England.  When  Russia  became  weak- 
ened by  defeat  at  the  hands  of  Japan  Germany  raised  at 
once  the  question  of  the  distribution  of  North  African  ter- 
ritory and  effected  the  convening  of  the  Algeciras  Confer- 
ence in  1906.  But  her  bluff  failed  and  she  had  to  yield  to 
compromise.  When,  in  1911,  another  conference  was  called 
at  the  instigation  of  Germany  for  the  same  purpose,  the  lat- 
ter was  again  foiled,  owing  chiefly  to  the  firm  stand  taken 
by  England  in  support  of  France. 

Another  symptom  of  the  current  of  German  world-policy 
has  been  the  Pan-German  movement,  aiming  at  the  "revival 
of  German  national  sentiment  all  over  the  earth,"  and  to  the 
union  of  all  the  people  speaking  the  German  language.  The 
effect  of  the  realization  of  this  programme  would  be  to  en- 
large the  German  Empire  at  the  expense  of  Austria  and 
Russia.     But  the  supreme  expression  of  "welt-politik"  has 


CAUSES  OF   THIS   WAR  237 

been  the  spirit  of  militarism  which  has  dominated  the  hearts 
of  the  Germans,  both  of  the  masses  and  of  the  personnel  of 
the  administration.  Heart  and  soul,  the  Germans  have 
given  themselves  over  to  the  development  of  an  immense 
military  force  both  on  land  and  on  sea,  whose  end  it  is  to 
render  Germany  supreme  on  the  continent  and,  indeed,  in 
the  whole  world.  As  we  have  seen,  the  Reichstag  has  voted 
on  repeated  occasions  to  increase  the  personnel  of  the  stand- 
ing army,  and,  moreover,  all  the  resources  of  the  country, 
scientific,  technical,  and  industrial,  have  been  devoted  to  the 
creation  of  the  completest  possible  equipments  in  shape  of 
arms,  ammunition,  aerial  fleet,  etc.  No  wonder  that  the  rest 
of  the  European  states  became  alarmed  and  began  to  arm  in 
defense.  In  Germany  the  military  party  became  supreme, 
and  the  Navy  league  raised  the  cry  of  naval  preponderance. 
The  forces  of  militarism  in  general  became  the  dominant 
expression  of  the  German  spirit  and  the  scientific  leaders 
of  Germany  have  indeed  declared  that  militarism  furnishes 
the  chief  bulwark  of  the  culture  of  their  fatherland.  To  a 
large  extent,  the  present  war  is  due  to  the  extremely  aggres- 
sive tactics  of  the  German  war-party,  which,  thirsting  for 
glory,  and  aiming  to  exalt  Germany  at  the  expense  of  the 
honor  and  territorial  integrity  of  the  other  states,  hurried 
matters  in  the  fateful  days  of  July  and  August  (1914),  and 
precipitated  the  conflict. 

To  the  above  let  us  add  that  this  particular  direction  of 
Germany's  world-policy  is  due  to  the  influence  of  her  uni- 
versities and  the  counsel  of  her  professors  and,  particularly, 
her  philosophers.  Nietzche  proclaimed  in  loud  voice  the 
independence  of  interest  and  expediency  from  moral  con- 
siderations, and  asserted  that  the  achievement  of  power  and 
domination  is  the  supreme  end  of  life — ranking  higher  even 
than  the  ends  of  happiness  and  virtue;  that  the  state  is  not 


238  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

answerable  to  the  demand  of  individual  conscience,  and  that 
it  may  exact  unconditional  obedience  from  its  members,  as- 
serting at  the  same  time  (as  Hegel  also  did  before  him)  that 
the  state  is  destined  to  receive  its  embodiment  pre-eminently 
in  the  establishment  of  the  German  Empire;  therefore  the 
latter  is  enjoined  to  strain  its  energies  to  the  end  of  secur- 
ing domination  over  the  rest  of  the  nations.  The  German 
people  fell  in  love,  as  it  were,  with  their  own  Kultur,  and 
undertook  to  propagate  it  and  even  compel  the  other  nations 
by  force  to  adopt  it.  But,  humanly  speaking,  no  state  has 
the  right  to  force  itself  or  its  goods  upon  other  states,  and 
the  attitude  of  the  German  mind,  as  just  expounded,  has 
provoked  estrangement  between  Germany,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  most  of  the  other  powers  in  Europe,  on  the  other;  has 
made  Germany  more  violently  aggressive  in  her  methods, 
and  has  inspired  the  other  European  states  with  the  feelings 
of  apprehension  and  resentment. 

(e)  Fifthly,  we  will  consider  the  situation  as  created  by 
the  exigencies  of  the  Oriental  question.  The  Near  East  has 
served  without  interruption  during  the  last  half  century  as 
a  hotbed  of  trouble  for  Europe.  From  the  beginning,  the 
entrance  of  Turkey  into  Europe  seems  to  have  been  a  great 
mistake.  Turkey  knew  only  how  to  conquer,  but  not  how 
to  govern,  and  there  were  continually  complaints  and  insur- 
rections on  the  part  of  her  subject  peoples.  The  Oriental 
question  has  been  created  by  Turkey's  assuming  control  over 
European  peoples  and  owing  to  her  incompetence  to  control 
them.  Continually  molested  and  pricked  by  rebellions  and 
revolutions  within  her  dominion,  Turkey  has  long  since  en- 
tered into  the  bedroom  as  the  "sick  man  of  Europe,"  there 
to  await  death  from  day  to  day.  In  the  meantime,  the 
European  states  began  to  quarrel  among  themselves  as  to 
the  inheritance.     In  fact,  they  set  about  seizing  the  goods 


KING   PETER 

OF   SERBIA 


CAUSES   OF  THIS   WAR  239 

before  their  possessor  had  died,  and  then  they  had  differ- 
ences as  to  the  apportionment  of  the  goods.  The  Oriental 
question  has  consisted  in  the  proMem,  (a)  of  dividing  fairly 
the  possessions  of  Turkey  among  the  European  powers,  and 
(b)  of  giving  to  the  subject  races  (Greek,  Bulgarian,  Ser- 
bian and  Montenegrin)  their  independence  or  the  enjoy- 
ment of  security  and  other  rights  during  their  subjection  to 
the  sovereign  state,  namely,  Turkey.  In  1826  Serbia  se- 
cured autonomy,  while  Greece  proclaimed  her  independence 
and  secured  it  through  the  war  of  1821.  Russia  played  an 
important  part  in  the  liberation  of  Bulgaria.  When,  in  1908, 
Turkey  adopted  the  constitution  and  a  new  regime  was 
entered  upon,  Bulgaria  proclaimed  her  complete  independ- 
ence of  the  Sultan  and  formally  annexed  Eastern  Roumelia 
to  the  national  kingdom.  In  these  various  events  Europe 
had  often  participated  effectively.  A  fleet  composed  of 
English,  French,  and  Russian  ships,  by  defeating  a  Turkish 
fleet  off  Navarino,  helped  Greece  to  secure  her  independence. 
In  the  Congress  of  Berlin  the  treaty  of  San  Stephano,  con- 
cluded after  the  defeat  of  Turkey  by  Russia,  was  mutilated 
and  radical  agreements  were  adopted  with  the  end  of  bring- 
ing Turkey  to  reason.  Nevertheless,  the  work  of  the  Con- 
gress was  ineffective  because  it  went  only  halfway  through 
its  provisions;  Greece  was  deprived  of  Epirus  and  Bulgaria 
was  granted  autonomy  but  not  independence.  Moreover, 
the  Congress  demanded  that  reform  be  instituted  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  Macedonia ;  the  Sultan  promised  to  obey, 
but,  as  the  Congress  did  not  back  its  demands  by  force,  he 
did  nothing  actually.  The  Balkan  nations  thereupon  took  the 
matter  into  their  own  hands,  and  organized  societies  whose 
purpose  it  was  to  equip  and  send  insurgent  bands  into  Mace- 
donia to  help  the  people  maintain  their  national  rights  and 
resist  the  Turkish  yoke.     This  was  one  of  the  causes  of 


240  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

the  Greco-Turkish  war  in  1897,  another  cause  being  the 
revolution  in  Crete,  the  inhabitants  of  which  desired  to  unite 
with  the  independent  kingdom  of  Greece.  In  this  war  the 
Greeks  were  easily  defeated  by  the  Turks  and  forced  to  pay 
an  indemnity.  Another  war  that  took  place  was  that  be- 
tween Turkey  and  Italy  in  1911,  the  cause  being  Italy's  de- 
termined policy  to  take  possession  of  Tripoli,  in  North 
Africa.  This  war  was  continued  up  to  the  outbreak  of  the 
first  Balkan  war  and  after,  and  was  concluded  by  the  treaty 
of  Lausanne,  in  which  Turkey  complied  virtually  with  all  of 
Italy's  demands. 

We  will  now  consider  the  Balkan  Wars  in  some  detail,  in 
their  origins  and  results.  The  chief  cause  of  the  first  Balkan 
War  was  the  ill-treatment  which  the  Christians  suffered  in 
European  Turkey  at  the  hands  of  the  governing  officials. 
Macedonia,  as  we  have  hinted,  was  terribly  mismanaged,  but 
the  Sultan  warded  off  interference  by  the  European  Powers 
by  piling  promises  upon  promises  for  reform.  In  1908  the 
Turkish  revolution  promised  to  solve  the  difficulties,  but 
after  a  short  interval  the  Young  Turks  showed  themselves 
to  be  even  more  chauvinistic  than  the  Turks  of  the  old  re- 
gime. They  adopted  the  policy  of  the  extinction  of  the  na- 
tional sentiment  in  the  consciousness  of  the  subject  races  and 
the  merging  of  the  latter  into  one  homogeneous  Turkish 
state.  And  to  enforce  this  policy  the  Young  Turks  began  to 
employ  the  most  violent  measures.  They  oppressed  the 
peoples  and  caused  their  leaders  to  be  assassinated ;  the  mas- 
sacres at  Kotchana  and  Berane  served  as  the  climax,  and  the 
first  Balkan  War  broke  out.  The  Carnegie  Commission  thus 
summarizes  the  causes  of  the  first  Balkan  War :  "First,  the 
weakness  and  want  of  foresight  of  Turkey,  on  the  verge  of 
dissolution;  second,  the  powerlessness  of  Europe  to  impose 
on  a  constitutional  Turkey  the  reforms  which  she  had  sue- 


KINO  CONSTANTINE  XII 

OF   GREECE 


CAUSES   OF  THIS   WAR  241 

ceeded  in  introducing  into  an  absolute  Turkey,  and  third,  the 
consciousness  of  increased  strength  which  alliance  gave  to 
the  Balkan  states,  each  with  a  national  mission  before  it, 
namely,  the  protection  of  the  men  of  its  race  and  religion 
dwelling  in  Turkey  against  the  Ottomanization  policy  which 
threatened  national  existence." 

In  March,  1912,  Serbia  and  Bulgaria  concluded  an  offen- 
sive alliance  against  Turkey,  and  in  May,  Greece  became  a 
party  to  the  same  agreement.  King  Nicholas  of  Montenegro 
supplied  the  spark  by  proclaiming  war  against  Turkey  on  Oc- 
tober 9 ;  on  October  13  the  allies  demanded  large  concessions 
and  Turkey  replied  by  declaring  war  on  the  17th.  The  events 
of  this  war,  in  which  Turkey  suffered  a  crushing  defeat,  may 
be  summarized  as  follows :  The  Greek  army  entered  Mace- 
donia by  the  Meluna  pass,  caused  the  Turks  to  retreat  at 
Pente-Pighadia  and  met  the  Turkish  army  in  a  pitched  bat- 
tle at  Sarantaporon,  and  defeated  it.  The  Crown  Prince 
(now  King  Constantine  XII  of  Hellenes)  entered  Veria  on 
October  30th,  and  from  there  the  army  took  the  road  to 
Salonika.  At  Yenije  the  Turkish  army  made  a  de- 
termined stand,  but  was  again  defeated,  and  the  way  to 
Salonika  became  now  practically  open.  The  city  itself  sur- 
rendered to  the  Greek  Crown  Prince  Constantine  on  Novem- 
ber 8th.  In  the  meantime  the  Greeks  embarked  upon  a  siege 
of  the  strong  fortress  of  Yanina  in  Epirus.  Here  the  Turks 
were  well  fortified  and  offered  stiff  resistance  under  Essad 
Pasha.  But  after  a  protracted  siege,  owing  to  a  clever  ruse 
of  the  Crown  Prince  and  the  gallantry  of  the  Greek  soldiers, 
Yanina  fell  on  the  5th  of  March,  1913.  Through  her  navy, 
Greece  effected  a  blockade  of  Turkish  ports,  prevented  the 
sending  of  reinforcements  from  Syria  to  Thrace  by  the 
Turkish  staff,  paralyzed  Turkish  trade  and  commerce  and 


24:2  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

occupied  all  the  Aegean  Islands  except  the  "Dodekanese," 
which  had  been  previously  seized  by  Italy. 

Bulgaria  began  the  war  under  brilliant  auspices.  The  Bul- 
garian army  at  once  occupied  Mustapha-Pasha  near  the  fron- 
tier, and  on  the  24th  of  October  captured  Kirk-Kilisse  after 
inflicting  a  severe  defeat  upon  the  Turkish  forces.  From 
there  the  main  Bulgarian  army  moved  on  to  Lules-Burgas, 
where  it  encountered  a  Turkish  army  numbering  about  150,- 
000.  The  battle  began  on  the  29th,  and  by  the  evening  of 
the  31st  the  Turks  were  in  disorderly  retreat  toward  Tsch- 
orlu.  At  Bunat  Hissar  they  suffered  a  fresh  defeat,  and 
withdrew  as  fast  as  they  could  to  the  intrenched  lines  of 
Tchatalja,  where  they  withstood  successfully  the  onset  of  the 
Bulgarian  troops.  The  siege  of  Adrianople  which  intervened 
furnished  a  very  dramatic  episode  in  the  war.  The  Bul- 
garians began  the  bombardment  of  the  city  the  28th  of  Oc- 
tober, but  they  soon  recognized  that  it  would  be  too  risky  and 
rather  unwise  to  attempt  to  capture  the  city  at  once  by  storm, 
so  they  established  a  close  blockade  of  the  city,  but  without 
abating  the  intensity  of  the  fighting.  An  armistice  was  de- 
clared in  the  meantime,  but  with  no  results,  and  fighting  was 
resumed.  Adrianople  fell  into  the  hands  of  Gen.  Ivanoff 
the  26th  of  March.  1913. 

The  Serbian  army  entered  Macedonia  through  old  Ser- 
bia, and  defeated  the  Turkish  forces  decisively  at  Kumanovo. 
Thereupon  it  proceeded  southward  and  defeated  again  the 
enemy  before  Monastir  and  captured  the  city.  Both  Ser- 
bians and  Montenegrins  invaded  Albania  of  which  the  for- 
mer captured  Durazzo,  and  the  latter,  after  a  very  protracted 
and  difficult  siege,  Scutari.  But  here  they  were  confronted 
by  the  interests  of  the  Austro-Italian  agreement  and  were 
compelled  by  the  European  concert  to  evacuate  both  of  these 
cities.    Let  us  add  that  in  the  meantime  they  had  made  good 


CAUSES  OF   THIS   WAR  243 

their  hold  at  Novi  Bazar,  a  sanjak  which  Austria  had  left  to 
Turkey  when  she  annexed  the  provinces  of  Bosnia  and  Her- 
zegovina. 

The  Balkan  allies  met  Turkish  plenipotentiaries  at  London 
and  signed  a  treaty  of  peace,  but  in  the  meantime  differences 
began  to  crop  up  among  the  allies  themselves  over  the  divi- 
sion of  the  spoils.  By  a  previous  treaty  between  Serbia  and 
Bulgaria  Serbia  had  agreed  not  to  get  any  Turkish  territory 
beyond  the  Ochrida-Solema-Vreh  line  in  Macedonia ;  never- 
theless, by  advancing  to  Prilip  and  Monastir  she  actually  did 
cross  this  line.  When  Bulgaria  demanded  observance  of  the 
conditions  of  the  treaty  Serbia  demurred,  stating  that  ex- 
ternal circumstances  had  changed.  For  one  thing,  Austria 
and  Italy  had  obstructed  Serbia's  path  toward  the  sea  in  the 
Adriatic;  Servia  therefore  was  deprived  of  her  legitimate 
spoils  and  claimed  the  right  to  seek  compensation  elsewhere. 
Secondly,  the  Bulgarians  had  not  given  to  the  Serbians  the 
military  aid  which  the  treaty  stipulated ;  on  the  contrary,  it 
was  the  Serbians  who  had  helped  the  Bulgarians.  Serbia 
thereupon  demanded  revision  of  the  treaty;  Bulgaria  re- 
fused, and  then  procrastinated  over  proposals  to  arbitrate 
the  question ;  but  the  military  party  hurried  matters  and  on 
June  28th  General  Savof,  of  Bulgaria,  ordered  an  attack 
against  the  Serbians.  At  the  same  time  Bulgaria  was  ex- 
tremely dissatisfied  with  the  occupation  of  Salonika  by  the 
Greeks,  and  the  Bulgarian  general  treacherously  ordered  an 
attack  against  the  Greek  army  as  well,  hoping  by  the  sudden- 
ness of  the  attack  to  succeed  in  separating  the  Greeks  from 
the  Serbians  on  the  field.  The  latter  at  once  ordered  a  coun- 
ter-attack in  defense,  and  the  second  Balkan  war  began,  in 
which  war  Bulgaria  was  punished  for  her  aggressiveness  and 
suffered  complete  defeat.  On  July  9th  the  Serbians  took 
Radovitch ;  on  the  14th,  Kriva  Palanka.  and  on  the  21st  thev 


244  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORU> 

were  besieging  Vidine.  The  Greeks,  on  the  other  hand,  at 
once  disarmed  and  made  captive  the  Bulgarian  regiment  at 
Salonika,  and  on  June  29th  routed,  after  a  three  days'  battle, 
the  Bulgarians  at  Kukush.  They  also  defeated  the  enemy  at 
Lahana,  and  secured  a  junction  with  the  Serbian  army;  on 
the  9th  of  July  the  Greeks  occupied  Strummitza,  captured 
in  the  meantime  the  important  cities  of  Kavala,  Seres  and 
Drama,  and  by  forced  marches  reached  the  Bulgarian  fron- 
tier at  Djouma-ya  (25-30).  Turkey,  too,  seized  the  oppor- 
tunity and  advanced  into  Thrace,  reconquered  the  lost  ter- 
ritory, and  recaptured  Adrianople.  On  July  11th  the  Rou- 
manian army  crossed  the  Bulgarian  frontier  and  began  to 
advance  against  Sophia.  On  July  11th  Bulgaria  appealed  to 
Europe  for  help;  on  the  21st  accepted  the  demands  of  Rou- 
mania,  and  on  the  31st  negotiations  were  opened  at  Bucha- 
rest. A  treaty  was  signed  on  August  10,  by  which  Bulgaria 
had  to  yield  practically  all  the  fruits  of  her  victory  in  the 
first  war;  to  Turkey  she  ceded  not  only  Adrianople,  but 
Kirk-Kilisse  as  well,  and  to  Roumania,  who  claimed  com- 
pensation for  her  neutrality  during  the  first  war,  the  north- 
eastern corner  of  the  country  itself,  embracing  a  population 
of  about  300,000. 

So  much  about  the  two  Balkan  wars.  How  were  they  con- 
nected, may  we  ask,  with  the  origin  of  the  present  war?  For 
one  thing,  through  the  intrigues  of  Austria,  Serbia  was  again 
shut  off  from  the  Adriatic  littoral  and  from  the  sea.  In  this 
way  the  hostility  of  Serbia  was  provoked,  and  agitations  be- 
gan for  a  Pan-Slav  movement  which  naturally  was  directed 
toward  the  Slavs  in  Austria  as  well  as  in  Serbia.  The  crea- 
tion of  Albania  as  an  independent  state  supplied  another 
fruitful  cause  of  discord.  Artificial  boundaries  were  erected 
between  Albania  and  Greece  on  the  one  hand,  and  Albania 
and  Serbia  on  the  other.    Albania  could  not  keep  the  peace 


KING  FERDINAND 

OK   ROUMANIA 


CAUSES   OF  THIS   WAR  245 

within  her  own  borders,  and  so  an  international  commission 
was  appointed,  when  Scutari  fell,  to  control  the  affairs. 
Later  a  German  prince  was  sent  as  a  ruler,  but  in  a  short  time 
he  had  to  confess  his  failure  by  leaving  his  kingdom.  An- 
other abnormal  element  in  the  situation  was  the  reoccupation 
of  Thrace  by  Turkey,  and  her  consequent  re-entrance  into 
Europe.  Turkey  had  again  taken  what  she  could  not  per- 
manently keep,  and  she  began,  as  before,  to  oppress  the  na- 
tive population.  And  finally,  the  dissolution  of  the  Balkan 
League  was  in  a  sense  a  blow  to  Russian  diplomacy  and  a 
success  for  Austrian  diplomacy.  The  Czar's  appeals  to  both 
Bulgaria  and  Serbia  that  they  arbitrate  their  differences  had 
failed  of  its  object,  and  Austrian  counsel  had  prevailed. 
Again,  intrigues  on  the  Balkan  soil,  carried  on  by  diplomats 
of  the  neighboring  states,  were  rife. 

Before  we  proceed  to  recount  the  immediate  events  which 
preceded  the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War,  we  will  make  use 
of  a  few  lines  to  mention  the  distribution  of  alliances  in  Eu- 
rope. The  two  great  factors  were  the  Triple  Alliance  on  the 
one  hand,  comprising  Germany,  Austro-Hungary  and  Italy, 
and  the  Triple  Entente  on  the  other,  comprising  Great  Brit- 
ain, France  and  Russia.  How  did  these  alignments  come 
about?  The  Austro-German  alliance  was  formed  in  1879 
and  Italy  entered  later  (1882).  At  first  Russia  was  friendly 
with  Germany  and,  as  we  have  seen,  was  a  member  of  the 
Three  Emperors'  League  of  which  Germany  and  Austria 
were  the  other  members.  But  when  in  1875  the  Czar  sided 
with  France  in  order  to  shield  her  from  the  hostile  intentions 
of  Germany,  and  when  later,  in  1878,  in  the  Congress  of  Ber- 
lin, Bismarck  was  an  arbiter  rather  than  a  champion  of  Rus- 
sia's claims,  the  feeling  between  Russia  and  Germany  quickly 
cooled.  A  rivalry  grew  up  between  Russia  and  Austria  with 
respect  to  the  eastern  question,  and  more  particularly  with 


246  WAR    OR    A    UNITED    WORLD 

respect  to  gaining  influence  and  control  over  the  Balkans. 
So  Germany  and  Austria  allied  themselves  in  1879,  pledging 
to  defend  themselves  against  Russia.  The  union  of  Italy 
with  the  Dual  Alliance  in  1882  seemed  rather  unnatural.  But 
Italy  had  quarrels  with  France  as  to  the  distribution  of  the 
territory  in  Northern  Africa;  she  felt  her  interests  to  be 
threatened,  and,  conscious  of  her  weakness,  sought  the  help 
of  stronger  friends.  But  in  allying  herself  with  Austria  she 
was  forced  to  crush  down  all  longings  for  the  liberation  of 
Italians  under  the  rule  of  the  latter;  nevertheless,  these  long- 
ings  have  reasserted  themselves  of  late,  and  Italy  has  re- 
gained her  freedom  of  action  by  denouncing  the  said  treaty 
of  alliance. 

On  the  other  hand,  France  felt  continually  the  menace  of 
the  German  invasion,  and,  looking  for  aid  in  self-defense, 
initiated  a  friendly  understanding  with  Russia,  which  gradu- 
ally developed  into  a  formal  alliance.  England  in  the  mean- 
time kept  aloof  in  lonely  isolation.  She  had  various  differ- 
ences with  France  which  kept  the  feeling  between  them  cool ; 
France  looked  askance  at  the  occupation  of  Egypt  by  Eng- 
land and  indeed  expected  the  latter  to  vacate  Egypt  ulti- 
mately, but  this  England  had  no  intention  to  do,  and  in  the 
Fashoda  incident  war  was  averted  only  by  the  yielding  of 
France.  France  and  England  fortunately  found  a  way  out 
of  their  difficulty  about  Egypt  in  1904.  England  promised 
not  to  obstruct  French  extension  in  Morocco,  and  France, 
on  her  side,  recognized  the  British  occupation  of  Egypt.  They 
also  settled  their  old  disputes  about  fishing  in  Newfound- 
land, also  about  Siam,  the  Niger,  Madagascar  and,  in  gen- 
eral, about  their  possessions  in  West  Africa.  A  little  later, 
England  found  herself  approaching  closer  to  Russia,  of 
which  she  had  been  heretofore  suspicious  with  respect  to  her 
possession  of  India.  In  1907,  England  and  Russia  reached  an 


CAUSES   OF   THIS   WAR  247 

agreement  as  to  their  interests  in  Afghanistan,  Persia  and 
Tibet.  The  agreements  of  England  with  France  and  with 
Russia,  respectively,  were  quite  independent  processes,  and  it 
is  wrong  to  construe  these  agreements  as  alliances  for  com- 
mon action  against  continental  foes.  There  were,  indeed, 
understandings  between  the  military  staffs  of  the  three  states 
respectively,  but  these  were  in  no  way  binding  upon  the  gov- 
ernments of  the  states,  and  had  no  influence  upon  their  gen- 
eral policies.  But  naturally,  when  trouble  broke  out  in  Eu- 
rope, and  Germany  with  Austria  took  one  side,  the  Entente 
became  converted  into  an  Alliance,  though  it  is  again  true  to 
say,  that  England  felt  free  to  keep  out  of  the  war  unless  her 
interests  became  imperiled.  Nevertheless,  a  crushing  defeat 
of  France  would  have  meant  unquestionably  the  aiming  of  a 
hard  blow  at  England,  and  the  latter  could  not  help  coming 
to  the  aid  of  France  in  her  opposition  to  the  Teuton  Alliance. 
We  have  so  far  considered  the  general  and  ultimate  causes 
of  the  present  war,  namely,  Anglo-German  rivalry,  Franco- 
German  opposition,  Slav-Teuton  rivalry,  German  world-pol- 
icy, and  the  Eastern  question.  We  will  now  examine  the 
immediate  causes  of  the  war,  consisting,  as  they  do,  in  the 
events  which  immediately  preceded  its  outbreak.  Undoubt- 
edly, the  assassination  of  the  Austrian  heir  to  the  throne, 
Archduke  Franz  Ferdinand,  at  Serajevo,  by  a  Serbian  pa- 
triot, was  the  spark  which  set  Europe  ablaze.  The  above 
event  took  place  on  the  28th  of  June.  July  23  Austria  ad- 
dressed an  ultimatum  to  Serbia  demanding  a  reply  within 
twenty- four  hours.  In  the  ultimatum  Austria  claimed  that 
Serbia  had  pursued  consistently  a  policy  tending  to  disinte- 
grate the  empire  by  her  attitude  of  protest  against  the  annex- 
ation of  Bosnia  and  her  encouragement  of  a  movement  to 
alienate  the  Slavs  in  the  monarchy  from  their  government. 
Austria  demanded  that  Serbia  stop  and  disavow  all  propa- 


248  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

ganda  tending  to  the  dissolution  of  the  Austro-Hungarian 
Monarchy  and  adopt  severe  and  strict  judicial  proceedings 
in  order  to  punish  the  persons  who  were  guilty  of  the  assassi- 
nation of  the  Archduke,  accepting  the  collaboration  of  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Austro-Hungarian  government  in  the  inves- 
tigation relative  thereto.  Serbia  at  once  communicated  with 
Russia,  and  the  latter  replied  that  she  could  not  be  disinter- 
ested in  the  matter.  Thus,  at  once  the  matter  lost  its  local 
character  and  assumed  import  for  all  the  powers.  There- 
upon, Sir  Edward  Grey  communicated  with  his  various  am- 
bassadors in  the  court  of  the  European  powers  and  proposed 
that  the  four  other  powers,  not  interested  directly  in  the  dis- 
cussion, namely,  Germany,  France,  Italy  and  Great  Britain, 
mediate  in  favor  of  moderation  in  Vienna  and  at  St.  Peters- 
burg. In  the  meantime,  the  Serbian  government  handed  a 
reply  to  the  Dual  monarchy  practically  yielding  in  all  points 
not  derogatory  to  its  dignity ;  nevertheless,  the  reply  was  pro- 
nounced unsatisfactory  by  the  monarchy.  Upon  this  Sir 
Edward  Grey  proposed  that  the  German,  French  and  Italian 
ambassadors  should  meet  him  in  conference  immediately,  in 
order  to  discover  some  way  out  of  the  complication.  But 
Germany  did  not  accept  the  proposal,  stating  that  it  could  not 
be  consonant  to  the  dignity  of  a  great  power  to  refer  to  arbi- 
tration a  difference  which  it  had  with  a  smaller  state.  Sir 
Edward  Grey  replied  that  if  it  was  a  question  of  the  "form 
of  the  proposal,"  he  would  be  ready  to  accept  any  suggestion 
from  the  German  government.  The  latter  did  not  reply  im- 
mediately, and  in  the  meantime  Austria  declared  war  upon 
Serbia  (July  28).  It  was  then  proposed  that  direct  conver- 
sations be  opened  between  Vienna  and  St.  Petersburg ;  also, 
Russia,  upon  learning  of  the  mobilization  in  Austria,  ordered 
mobilization  in  four  of  her  southern  districts.  This  move- 
ment was  not  directed  against  Germany,  but  was  meant  only 


KING  ALBERT 

Ol'"   BELGIUM 


CAUSES   OF  THIS   WAR  249 

as  a  reply  to  the  Austrian  mobilization.  On  July  31  Aus- 
tria expressed  readiness  to  resume  conversations  with  Rus- 
sia, but  Germany  intervened  and  hurried  matters.  Germany 
threatened  to  mobilize  unless  Russia  ceased  military  pre- 
parations. But  Austria  began  to  mass  troops  near  her  Rus- 
sian frontier,  and  Russia,  confronted  with  the  contingency 
of  a  war  against  a  great  power,  ordered  a  general  mobiliza- 
tion. In  the  meantime,  telegraphic  communications  passed 
between  the  Kaiser  and  the  Czar,  but  to  no  avail,  and  on  July 
31  Germany  presented  an  ultimatum  to  Russia  demanding 
that  her  mobilization  should  cease  within  twenty-four  hours, 
and  also  presented  another  ultimatum  to  France  asking  her 
to  define  her  attitude  in  the  eventuality  of  war.  The  French 
government  replied  on  the  1st  of  August  that  it  would  con- 
sult its  own  interests  and  on  the  same  day  ordered  general 
mobilization.  Germany,  declaring  the  attitude  of  Russia  un- 
satisfactory, as  well  as  that  of  France,  ordered  general  mo- 
bilization on  August  1 ;  on  August  2  invaded  Luxembourg, 
and  on  August  4  entered  Belgian  territory.  Previously  (July 
31)  Sir  Edward  Grey  had  asked  France  and  Germany 
whether  they  would  respect  Belgian  neutrality  in  case  of 
mutual  war ;  the  former  had  replied  she  would,  but  Germany 
was  non-committal.  On  August  3  the  latter  sent  an  ultima- 
tum to  Belgium  demanding  that  it  grant  passage  to  the  Ger- 
man troops  through  its  territory.  The  Belgian  King  then  ap- 
pealed to  King  George  of  England,  and  on  the  4th  of  Au- 
gust England  presented  an  ultimatum  to  Germany  asking 
for  assurances  respecting  the  preservation  of  Belgian  neu- 
trality and  demanding  a  reply  by  12  o'clock  midnight.  Ger- 
many made  no  reply,  and  Great  Britain  declared  war  on  Ger- 
many on  the  same  date.  As  Germany  had  already  declared 
war  on  Russia  on  the  1st  and  on  France  on  the  4th,  the  con- 
flict thus  became  general. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

PEACE  WITH  JUSTICE. 

We  have  now  ended  our  survey  of  the  history  of  the  wars 
throughout  Europe.  We  are  aware  of  the  fact  that  not  all 
military  campaigns  have  been  included  in  our  survey,  but 
we  can  claim  that  the  large  majority  of  them  have  received 
attention,  and  indeed  a  sufficient  amount  and  proportion  on 
the  one  hand  to  furnish  an  idea  of  the  role  which  war  has 
played  on  the  stage  of  human  life  in  Europe  and,  on  the 
other,  to  constitute  a  relatively  clear  background  for  an  in- 
vestigation into  war  itself,  its  nature  and  effects.  Upon 
this  last  topic  we  will  now  enter. 

Just  now  everyone  seems  to  have  made  up  his  mind  that 
war  is  bound  to  go.  It  appears  to  be  generally  taken  as 
granted  that  war  has  played  its  last  card  and  that  it  has  lost. 
Mars,  the  god  of  warfare,  makes  his  appearance  in  such  ap- 
palling horror,  drenched  with  so  much  blood,  that  every 
would-be  worshiper  is  instantly  repelled.  Humanity  is 
forced  to  drink  now  its  fill  of  misery  from  the  goblet  of 
war,  but,  once  through,  is  determined  to  throw  away  the 
goblet  and  dash  it  into  pieces. 

But  perhaps  the  feeling  is  not  absolutely  universal.  War 
has  its  advocates  on  principle,  though  their  voices  may  not 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  251 

be  so  loud  at  the  present  moment.  The  masses  in  Germany 
may  be  against  war,  but  most  of  the  leaders  there  are  un- 
doubtedly war's  pronounced  champions.  They,  along  with 
their  docile  disciples,  see  glory  in  war  where  others  discover 
misery;  they  see  justice  in  war's  awards  in  spite  of  war's 
apparent  brutality ;  and  morally  ennobling  influence  and  ten- 
dency to  render  the  character  of  the  people  hardy  and  virile 
— at  least  so  they  claim  to  see.  Where  others  discover  ab- 
solute waste  in  warfare,  they  see  a  process  of  dispensing 
with  the  accumulated  rubbish  of  civilization;  where  others 
see  ruthless  destruction,  they  discover  a  force  working  for 
the  survival  of  the  fittest  and  best.  We  need  not  linger  on 
the  arguments  of  this  party;  Ruskin  has  voiced  the  same 
sentiment  in  eloquent  language  and  German  philosophy  has 
supplied  the  theoretical  justification  of  the  ideal  of  militar- 
ism. It  is  not  our  purpose  to  combat  this  position  imme- 
diately ;  we  may  merely  remind  ourselves  that  there  is  always 
something  to  be  said  for  even  the  most  harmful  and  wicked 
of  human  agencies,  and  wrangles  and  personal  encounters 
in  the  street  between  two  individuals  may  claim  approval 
upon  the  same  grounds  which  the  militarists  adduce  in  favor 
of  war.  The  said  fight  calls  forth  all  the  men's  latent  phy- 
sical strength,  exercises  their  muscles,  is  provoked  by  each 
one's  (true  or  mistaken)  sense  of  injured  dignity,  and  it 
gives  the  victory  to  the  strongest — which  in  Nature's  lan- 
guage may  mean  the  fittest. 

But,  besides  the  above,  there  is  another  group  of  thinkers 
who,  as  against  the  former,  may  sincerely  deplore  war  and 
its  inevitable  effects,  yet  are  thoroughly  convinced  that  hu- 
manity can  simply  not  do  without  war,  not  because  of  lack 
of  desire  to  dispense  with  war,  but  because  war  is,  so  to 
speak,  part  and  parcel  of  the  general  course  of  things,  and 
that  consequently  all  efforts  aiming  to  prevent  the  occur- 


252  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

rence  of  war  are  necessarily  bound  to  be  futile.  The  views 
of  the  said  party  merit  serious  and  considerable  attention, 
because  they  are  important,  derived  from  an  objective  con- 
sideration of  facts,  and  are  absolutely  unbiased  and  unin- 
fluenced by  motives  of  passion  and  interest. 

To  take  the  matter  up — our  eyes  arc  directed  by  this 
party  to  the  spectacle  disclosed  to  us  by  the  investigations 
of  Malthus  and  Darwin;  before  us  is  unfolded  the  view  of 
Nature  in  evolution,  whose  supreme  law  is  the  struggle  for 
existence.  To  live  implies  to  struggle,  and  to  survive  means 
to  conquer.  Development  appears  to  be  the  result  of  a  pain- 
ful, incessant,  and  uncompromising  combat  among  individ- 
uals. Each  organic  unit  is  the  potential  and  legitimate  prey 
of  its  fellows,  and  indeed  of  any  other  unit.  Moreover,  the 
fight  seems  exclusively  brutal;  physical  force  is  the  test  of 
ability  to  survive,  and  to  be  fit,  as  we  have  already  suggested, 
is  to  be  strong.  And  the  law  of  the  jungle  is  the  law  of  the 
mountain  and  valley  and  open  field,  of  the  hamlet  and  of  the 
metropolitan  city.  In  other  words,  struggle,  brutal,  bloody, 
desperate  struggle,  is  presented  as  the  ultimate  and  inmost 
law  of  living  things,  if  not  of  inanimate  things  as  well.  On 
the  level  of  matters  human,  within  the  sphere  of  business,  it 
appears  as  the  law  of  out-and-out  competition,  and  in  the 
sphere  of  the  relations  of  nations  it  appears  in  the  shape  of 
continual,  deadly  warfare.  Thus,  war  is  seen  to  be  in- 
separable from  life,  and  the  God  of  War  to  be  at  once  the 
God  of  All. 

In  view,  then,  of  this  general  outlook,  serious-minded 
people  are  led  to  take  a  fatalistic  attitude  toward  the  ques- 
tion of  the  prevention  of  war.  Whether  we  like  it  or  not, 
it  is  alleged,  war  must  stay  always  with  us.  Competition  lies 
at  the  root  of  all  change  and  development,  and,  however  bru- 
tal, immoral,  and  depraving  be  its  effects,  it  is  a  fact  to  be 


PEACE  WITH  JUSTICE  253 

faced  and  acquiesced  in.  The  ruthless  God  is  there,  and  He 
commands  and  compels  worship. 

Such  a  weltanschaaung,  if  valid,  must  surely  provide  food 
for  anxious  thought.  But  we  feel  stiong  misgivings  as  to 
its  tenability.  Is  the  situation  really  as  bad  and  hopeless  as 
portrayed?  Is  the  world  inalienably  committed  to  an  im« 
moral,  inhuman  order  of  Providence?.  Can  it  be  that  Na- 
ture is  divided  against  itself,  so  that  while  in  man  (at  leasts 
it  creates  sentiments  of  altruism,  solidarity,  and  pity,  it  nev- 
ertheless is  essentially  ruthless,  and  endures  solely  through 
rapacious  strife  and  conquest?  As  a  matter  of  fact,  is  com- 
petition in  the  shape  of  warfare  a  necessary  element  in  the 
makeup  of  organic  life? 

Now,  this  is  precisely  the  point  of  view  from  which  we 
intend  to  tackle  the  question  of  war.  And  if  after  con- 
sideration we  conclude  that  there  is  no  fatal  necessity  com- 
pelling the  waging  of  war,  we  will  find  ourselves  breathing 
a  freer  atmosphere,  and  feel  competent  to  take  a  more  force- 
ful and  practical  attitude  toward  the  problem  of  war.  We 
will  then  ask  ourselves  what  the  means  are  which  will  en« 
sure  its  cessation. 

But  perhaps  we  can  take  our  position  on  a  still  higher 
point  of  view.  War,  whether  bad  or  good,  is  actually  a  fac« 
tor  in  the  life  of  humanity,  and  questions  about  war  merge 
with  questions  as  to  the  general  good  of  humanity.  In 
other  words,  looking  at  things  from  a  more  comprehensive 
standpoint,  the  problem  confronting  us  concerns  not  war 
directly,  but  the  welfare  of  the  nations  and  states  in  general, 
and,  incidentally,  the  place  and  function  of  war  in  this  wel- 
fare as  analyzed  and  agreed  upon.  In  other  words,  our 
first  question,  thus  expanded,  takes  the  following  form: 
What  is  the  most  desirable  and  at  the  same  time  most  prac* 
ticable  ideal  of  the  organization  of  nations  and  states, — and 


254  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

is  war  demanded  by  the  exigencies  of  this  ideal  ?  Our  sec* 
ond  question  will  be :  What  is  the  best  means  of  realizing 
the  ideal  as  ascertained,  and,  in  case  the  ideal  excludes  war, 
what  is  then  the  most  practical  means  of  exterminating 
war?  Our  first  question  is  obviously  of  a  theoretical  and 
our  second  question  of  a  practical  import.  In  effect,  we  put 
Plato's  question  to  ourselves,  and  proceed  to  formulate  the 
structure  of  the  ideal  quality,  ideal  in  the  sense  that  it  is 
both  eminently  desirable  and  ultimately  practicable — with 
the  view  of  ascertaining  at  the  same  time  whether  within 
this  structure  war  finds  a  place,  either  as  contingent  or  as 
necessary.  And  then  we  will  ask  ourselves  how  we  can  put 
this  ideal  to  practice,  and,  in  so  far  as  we  conclude  that  the 
conception  of  the  best  constitution  for  humanity,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  practice  of  war,  on  the  other,  are  mutually 
exclusive,  we  will  consider  the  means  for  doing  away  with 
war  in  the  most  efficient  and  thorough  fashion. 

A. 

We  begin  with  the  first  question.  Now,  the  principle 
must  be  admitted  true  that  progress  is  achieved  by  nature 
through  competition,  so  that  the  fittest  is  awarded  the 
prize,  namely,  life  itself.  To  be  sure,  competition  plays  a 
very  prominent  role  in  the  lives  of  civilized,  as  well  as  un- 
civilized, peoples  at  the  present  day,  constituting  the  regu- 
lating factor  in  business  and  culture.  It  would  be  foolish 
to  decry  competition  and  to  set  up  an  ideal  which  eliminates 
competition;  we  know  from  experience  that  competition  is 
needed  to  furnish  the  steam  to  keep  things  going ;  that  com- 
petition, only,  prevents  individuals  and  organizations  from 
slackening  in  pace;  that  by  competition  the  muscles  of  the 
body  and  of  the  soul  are  hardened  and  trained.     But  grant- 


PEACE  WITH   JUSTICE  255 

ing  the  supremacy  of  competition,  does  it  follow,  as  mili- 
tarist philosophy  claims  it  does,  that  strife  is  the  universal 
law,  that  the  normal  state  of  feeling  between  the  individual 
organisms  is  hatred  as  well  as  mere  indifference,  and  the 
normal  attitude  of  behavior  mutual  opposition,  owing  to  the 
fact  that  the  good  Of  the  one  may  be  secured  only  at  the 
expense  of  that  of  the  rest?  Does  granting  that  competi- 
tion is  the  unchangeable  law  of  Nature  involve  the  admis- 
sion of  the  contention  that  war  is  necessary — in  short,  does 
competition  imply  warfare?  Co-operation  appears  to  be 
the  rule  of  Nature,  as  well,  for  our  civilized  life  makes  use 
of  the  forces  of  both  competition  and  co-operation,  and  even 
among  individuals,  the  grouping  of  organisms  for  mutual 
help  is  practiced  and  encouraged.  Possibly  Nature  contra- 
dicts itself ;  but  before  accepting  this  unwelcome  conclusion, 
let  us  carefully  examine  the  nature  of  competition  with  the 
end  of  seeing  if  it  really  necessitates  the  state  of  warfare 
among  individuals  and  the  groups  of  individuals,  and 
whether  it  thus  excludes  co-operation. 

I.  Now,  from  the  very  first  we  must  insist  that  the  field 
of  competition  is  Nature,  and  the  ultimate  struggle  is  waged 
by  man  against  Nature  in  order  that  he  might  secure  control 
over  her.  Not  man  against  man,  but  man  against  Nature. 
After  all,  in  the  last  analysis,  man  exerts  himself,  toils  and 
struggles  in  order  to  realize  in  fact  his  right  to  exist,  and 
the  goal  of  his  efforts  is  the  assurance  of  a  comfortable  liv- 
ing. Now,  since  Nature  is  the  ultimate  environment  of  life, 
the  background  of  all  human  activity,  the  sole  storehouse  of 
energy  and  nourishment,  it  is  from  Nature  that  man  will 
wrest  his  living;  if  man  must  toil,  he  toils  with  Nature, — if 
he  must  struggle  it  is  against  Nature  whenever  she  is  stingy 
and  unyielding, — if  he  needs  to  conquer,  it  must  be  Nature, 
whenever  she  raises  her  forces  of  wind  and  storm  and  quakes 


256  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

to  resist  the  onset  of  the  army  of  humanity.  The  legitimate 
prey  of  man,  if  such  there  be  at  all,  cannot  be  his  fellow,  for 
why  indeed  should  man  turn  his  greedy  eyes  in  the  direction 
of  the  other  fellow,  who  is  born  obviously  naked  and  bare 
of  fortune,  instead  of  turning  in  the  direction  of  the  com- 
mon source  of  both,  to  the  power  of  bringing  them  about 
and  providing  the  food  with  which  their  souls  and  bodies  are 
to  be  nourished — in  short,  Nature? 

Now,  in  this  struggle,  competition  does  indeed  enter  as 
between  men,  but  in  indirect  fashion.  Thus,  individuals 
compete  with  each  other  in  their  efforts  to  exploit  Nature, 
and  the  victor  is  the  one  who  succeeds  in  making  the  most 
of  her  resources.  If  such  be  the  case,  competition  does  not 
mean,  necessarily,  a  mutual  fight  between  the  human  groups, 
but  is  a  contest  where  primarily  the  adequate  provision  of 
material  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  vital  needs  of  each  con- 
stitutes the  test  of  worth  and  the  prize  of  achievement.  Such 
competition  is  indirect  so  far  as  the  individuals  are  con- 
cerned, because  the  competition  holds  directly  not  of  the  in- 
dividuals, but  of  the  relation  of  each  individual  to  a  third 
objective,  namely,  Nature. 

Competition  is  obviously  a  process  whereby  the  relative 
worth  of  two  or  more  individuals  is  made  evident.  The  final 
point  of  view  is  that  of  the  relation  of  the  organism  to  Na- 
ture in  general,  and  not  of  the  organism  to  another  organ- 
ism. Hence,  Nature  recognizes  in  fact  the  worth  of  the 
peoples  in  so  far  as  they  make  the  most  of  her  and  not  in  so 
far  as  they  make  the  most  of  each  other.  Thus,  mutual 
struggle  is  not  strictly  relevant  to  competition  as  Nature  calls 
for  it.  An  individual  or  community  which  succeeds  in  suck- 
ling enough  out  of  the  bosom  of  Mother  Earth,  and  in  com- 
pletely adapting  itself  to  the  great  environment — such  an  or- 
ganism proves  itself  worthy  in  the  eyes  of  Nature,  and  as 


PEACE  WITH   JUSTICE  257 

such  is  adjudged  a  winner  in  the  universal  competition, — 
and  another  organism  which  shows  signs  of  weakness  in  re- 
sponding to  the  natural  stimuli,  which  squanders  instead  of 
using,  which  idles  while  the  others  are  gathering  the  har- 
vest,— such  an  organism  is  declared  wanting  and  adjudged  a 
loser. 

The  measure  of  worth  in  this  competitive  struggle  is  de- 
termined by  the  fact  that  an  organism,  in  responding  to  the 
environment,  is  simply  working  to  satisfy  its  vital  needs 
and  attain  the  fullest  life  it  can,  and  the  individual  who 
succeeds  in  adjusting  himself  to  the  environment  will  be  the 
one  to  enjoy  the  fullest  life  and  thus  to  prove  himself  the 
fittest  to  survive.  Moreover,  the  competition  is  selective, 
in  that  the  nourishment  which  the  individual  may  wrest  from 
the  hands  of  Nature  being  of  a  limited  amount,  given  two 
individuals,  the  fitter  among  them  will  run  away  with  all 
he  can  of  the  stock  and  consequently  the  weaker  will  not  be 
left  with  nourishment  sufficient  for  his  needs,  and  will  hence 
succumb.  Also,  since  the  material  is  not  furnished  by  Na- 
ture spontaneously,  and  since  when  extracted  from  her  it  is 
in  raw  shape,  the  individual  must  be  active  and  diligent,  both 
in  securing  the  material  and  in  converting  it  into  the  form 
suitable  to  make  it  nourishing.  Consequently,  the  inert  and 
indolent  fellow  will  be  anticipated  and  surpassed  by  the  dili- 
gent fellow  in  the  contest  to  obtain  the  food. 

In  short,  the  competition  for  life  is  like  a  running  race 
where  two  individuals  compete  to  attain  a  distant  goal ;  now, 
the  conflict  between  the  two  operates  in  terms  of  their  rela- 
tion to  a  common  object,  and  is  hence  indirect,  and  the  prize 
is  awarded  to  the  one  who  proves  abler  by  running  the  faster. 
If  we  now  grant  that  the  goal  and  prize  of  the  competition 
is  Life,  we  get  the  natural  competition  for  survival.  From 
this  point  of  view,  warfare  would  mean  direct  strife  between 


258  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

the  competitors,  and  as  such  is  not  called  for,  since  in  the 
competition  which  Nature  carries  out  the  competitors  do  not 
fight  each  other  respectively,  but  both  strive  with  all  their 
strength  to  attain  a  specific  goal.     Let  us  illustrate : 

A  and  B  are  two  individuals  engaged  in  mutual  competi- 
tion; to  decide  the  contest  through  mutual  warfare  would 
by  analogy  imply  that  A  tries  to  get  ahead  of  B  by  forcibly 
taking  hold  of  B  and  keeping  him  back,  or,  say,  causing  B 
to  trip  and  fall  and  thus  to  lag  behind. 

But  this  would  surely  be  a  wrong  way  of  waging  the  com- 
petition. The  fitness  of  the  competitor  in  the  struggle  for 
life  is  measured  not  by  his  capacity  to  ruin  his  rival,  but  by 
his  superior  attainments  in  the  race  to  exploit  the  resources 
of  Nature,  and  the  competition  is  settled  not  by  a  direct 
fight  between  the  parties  concerned,  but  in  terms  of  the  dif- 
ference of  the  relation  on  the  part  of  each  to  the  environ- 
ment. And  the  same  applies  to  collections  of  individuals. 
There  is  no  call  by  the  law  of  evolution  for  direct  conflict 
among  the  peoples.  The  competition  may  and  should  oper- 
ate indirectly  and  the  award  be  made  automatically.  Here 
we  have  Germany  and  England,  two  rival  states.  Let  Ger- 
many strain  her  energies  and  extend  her  commerce,  increase 
her  agricultural  output  and  multiply  her  industrial  produce, 
and  let  England  lag  behind,  and  the  latter  will  speedily  suc- 
cumb. 

In  general,  then,  a  nation  may  completely  surpass  another 
in  the  race  for  the  common  goal  of  adjustment  to  the  en- 
vironment and  control  of  natural  forces,  and  may  secure  the 
right  to  live,  by  actually  putting  up  a  speedier  pace  than  its 
rival  and  in  thus  outstripping  the  latter.  The  alternative 
presented  by  war  is  for  a  nation  to  attempt  to  win  the  race 
by  causing  injury  upon  its  rival  nation,  and  thus  incapacitat- 
ing it  as  a  competitor;  such  an  alternative,  if  our  observa- 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  259 

tions  on  the  nature  of  competition  are  correct,  is  neither 
necessary  nor  proper,  but  is  rather  abnormal. 

To  sum  up,  we  have  distinguished  between  a  competitive 
struggle,  on  the  one  hand,  which  possesses  the  character  of 
a  race,  whose  prize  is  life,  and  which  is  decided  by  the  fact 
that  this  or  that  competitor  attains  the  goal  first  and  thus 
deprives  his  rival  of  the  prize  sought  for — and  another  form 
of  competitive  struggle  on  the  other  hand  which  consists  in 
a  direct  combat  between  the  parties  themselves,  each  at- 
tempting to  injure  and  ruin  his  rival  and  thus  remain  the 
sole  survivor  in  the  race.  The  first  is  the  natural  form  of 
competition,  and  the  second,  constituting  warfare,  is  un- 
called for. 

II.  So  far,  we  have  tried  to  prove — we  hope  with  success 
— that  competition  does  not  imply  warfare  and  that,  to  say 
the  least,  war  and  mutual  conflict  of  any  form  between  in- 
dividuals and  nations  are  not  necessary  elements  in  the  carry- 
ing out  of  the  laws  of  Nature  relative  to  the  struggle  of  life 
and  the  elimination  of  the  unfit.  Still,  it  might  be  insisted 
that  though  war  may  not  be  necessary,  it  is  possibly  desir- 
able and  hence  is  employed  by  Nature.  To  this  proposition 
we  return  a  decided  negative.  War  is  not  desirable  in  the 
scheme  of  natural  selection  as  reflected  in  the  law  of  com- 
petition, and  for  the  following  reasons : 

(a)  Warfare  works  against  co-operation,  and,  as  we  shall 
have  reason  to  see,  co-operation  is  necessary  to  the  carrying 
out  of  the  unconscious  ends  of  Nature.  Warfare  implies 
the  rupture  of  relations  among  the  competitors,  and  destruc- 
tive struggle  waged  by  each  against  all ;  now,  given  that  co- 
operation is  useful,  that  form  of  competition  which  entails 
warfare  must  necessarily  be  undesirable  and  be  superseded 
by  another  form  which  does  not  exclude  competition, 
namely,  the  one  we  have  been  advancing. 


260  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

(b)  Warfare  promotes  waste  and  destruction.  The  com- 
petitors fight  among  themselves  and  the  winner  is  the  sole 
survivor  as  well.  Now,  however  prodigal  Nature  may  be, 
she  never  courts  waste  for  its  own  sake.  The  propagation 
of  life  is  the  end  to  which  she  automatically  tends,  and 
abundance  of  life  is  therefore  desirable.  Consequently,  if 
there  is  a  way  to  carry  on  competition  without  mutual  strife 
among  the  competitors  and  without  consequent  destruction 
of  life,  but  indirectly,  that  way  is  to  be  preferred  to  the 
method  which  entails  destruction  and  waste.  The  latter 
must  be  discarded,  and  the  former — which,  as  we  have 
urged,  exists — must  be  employed  instead. 

(c)  Thirdly,  and  the  most  important,  war  does  not  really 
constitute  a  fair  test  of  worth  and  therefore  does  not  min- 
ister in  any  way  to  the  ends  of  competition.  In  other  words, 
war  not  only  possesses  disadvantages  in  carrying  out  the 
ends  of  competition,  but  it  really  does  not  carry  them  out 
at  all.  The  reason  is,  that  war  is  not  a  reliable  and  fit  test 
for  the  selection  of  the  fittest,  owing  to  the  following  causes : 

1.  When  A  and  B  are  running  in  the  race,  if  A  hits  B  or 
causes  B  to  fall  down,  then  if  A  forges  ahead  and  arrives 
first  at  the  finish,  it  will  certainly  not  mean  that  A  was 
actually  the  better  of  the  two  as  a  runner.  Warfare  decides 
the  issue  by  eliminating  all  the  competitors  except  one,  and 
thus  results  in  the  elimination  of  the  contest  itself. 

2.  Again,  an  organism  which  is  highly  developed,  but 
small  in  size,  may  go  down  under  the  heavy  foot  of  the  big- 
ger organism — a  small  but  civilized  and  developed  nation 
may  thus  be  trampled  under  foot  (as  has  happened  in  his- 
tory during  the  incursions  of  primitive  Asiatics  in  Europe) 
by  hords  of  brutal  savages.  Thus,  the  accidental  bringing 
together  of  large  numbers  may  prove  the  determining  factor 
in  the  fight,  whereas,  really  such  a  verdict,  as  determined  by 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  261 

mere  numbers,  is  invalid  in  the  court  of  appeals  of  evolving 
Nature.  Not  only  size  in  numbers,  but  relative  advantage 
in  point  of  brute  force  as  well,  may,  in  direct  warfare,  deter- 
mine the  victory  in  case  one  of  the  combatants  is  equipped 
with  spiritual  rather  than  brutal  forces;  a  burly,  brawny 
giant  will  fight  and  easily  put  down  or  kill  a  tenderly-built 
woman;  nevertheless,  a  woman  may,  and  does  in  this  in- 
stance, represent  a  highly  evolved  organic  product.  Thus, 
war  reverses  the  verdict  of  Nature  by  introducing  factors 
such  as  superiority  in  numbers  and  in  brute  force,  which  are 
of  no  overwhelming  consequence  in  the  normal  working  out 
of  competition.  By  the  test  of  Nature,  the  woman  may  be 
very  fit,  in  that  she  is  fulfilling  her  end  by  propagating  life 
and  bringing  it  up  properly  and  may  thus  be  adapting  her- 
self to  the  circumstances  more  intelligently  than  the  mus- 
cular male. 

3.  Or  one  of  the  parties  may  take  unfair  advantage  of 
its  rivals,  and  pounce  upon  them  unawares — e.  g.,  it  is 
claimed  by  the  allies,  Germany  has  done  as  against  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Entente,  by  preparing  secretly  for  years  manu- 
facturing arms  and  equipping  herself  in  all  ways,  and  then 
attacking  them  at  the  moment  which  suited  her  best.  After 
all,  the  fitness  of  an  individual  or  a  nation  is  determined  in 
relation  to  its  adjustment  to  Nature,  whose  product  it  is  and 
by  whom  it  is  supported  in  life,  and  not  by  its  capacity  to 
put  down  a  fellow  individual  or  sister  nation  through  use  of 
illegitimate  means  in  a  struggle  whose  outcome  depends  on 
so  many  strange  and  accidental  factors. 

Thus,  we  conclude  that  war  is  not  only  unnecessary,  but 
undesirable  as  well,  as  a  form  of  competition;  if  it  exists, 
therefore,  it  is  rather  as  an  abnormality,  similar  to  many 
other  evidences  of  atavism  which  one  discovers  abundantly 
in  Nature,  than  as  a  process  tested  and  approved  of  and  in- 


262  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORI^D 

corporated  into  the  general  scheme.  We  will  try  to  show 
in  the  next  paragraph  that  brutal  warfare  does  not  take  place 
in  nature,  after  all,  on  so  large  a  scale  as  many  seem  to  think. 

III.  For  one  thing,  the  condition  of  family  life  prevalent 
among  many  species  of  animals  is  a  standing  contradiction  of 
the  view  that  warfare  is  all  dominant.  Especially  among  the 
vertebrates  and  particularly  among  birds,  we  discover  touch- 
ing instances  of  parental  devotion  and  sacrifice.  In  such 
cases,  the  individual  exists  neither  as  self-assertive  nor  as 
exclusive  of  the  others,  but  as  congenial,  concerned  with  the 
welfare  of  the  others,  altruistic.  Indeed,  why  fail  to  men- 
tion man  and  his  condition  of  life,  for  is  not  man  the  child 
of  Nature  pre-eminently,  the  animal  par  excellence?  Well, 
the  family  life  among  the  members  of  the  human  species 
seems  to  be  by  far  the  most  generally  pervasive  of  forms  of 
grouping.  Instances  where  this  relationship  is  absent  exist, 
but  they  exist  as  exceptions  rather  than  as  in  conformity  to 
natural  usage.  The  sentiments  of  pity,  self-forgetfulness  in 
the  remembrance  of  the  other,  love,  and  self-sacrifice  are  the 
natural  prerequisites  and  outgrowths  of  the  family  life.  And 
surely  it  is  too  much  of  an  insult  against  our  intelligence  to 
be  told  by  Nietzche  and  his  followers  that  hatred  and  con- 
quest, treading  down  the  weak  and  improving  oneself  by 
making  stepping  stones  of  the  other  fellow's  corpse,  is  the 
only  or  the  true  order  in  Nature.  By  what  right  may  a  per- 
son select  one  out  of  the  two  as  essential  or  proper  and  neg- 
lect the  other  or  brand  it  as  unnatural  ? 

Coming  to  the  assertion  of  Neo-Darwinians  that  mutual 
struggle  and  bestial  warfare  are  the  governing  powers,  we 
find  in  Nature  abundant  facts  illustrating  the  law  of  an  op- 
posite character,  namely,  co-operation.  Animals  go  by  herds, 
they  protect  themselves  in  common,  secure  their  food  in  com- 
mon, even  fight  in  common;  of  men,  savages,  supposedly 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  263 

closest  to  Nature,  live  a  social  life;  they  go  by  tribes  and 
races ;  when  they  hunt  they  make  groups  and  go  off  together. 
Thus,  both  animals  and  uncivilized  men  move  on  a  level 
where  not  only  the  individual,  but  society  as  well,  is  a  unit; 
they  recognize  their  good  as  bound  up  with  that  of  the  rest ; 
they  act  with  the  others  rather  than,  or  as  well  as,  against 
them.  It  is  not  our  intention  in  the  least  to  deny  the  facts  of 
struggle  and  conflict,  but  evidently  social  and  co-operative 
life  is  a  fact  equally  significant.  Throughout  the  course  of 
development  we  find  that  both  these  processes  prevail — co- 
operation as  well  as  conflict — and  it  is  becoming  increasingly 
clear  that  co-operation  is  gaining  slowly  but  surely  the  upper 
hand.  Co-operation  starts  among  animals,  along  with  war- 
fare; sometimes  it  is  overshadowed  by  direct  competition, 
sometimes  it  overshadows  it ;  it  survives  on  the  human  level 
and  there  it  gains  a  new  momentum.  On  the  plane  of  human 
development  community-life  and  community-activity  appear 
gradually  to  supersede  individualism  and  disruption.  In  the 
sphere  of  business  is  this  fact,  perhaps,  most  strikingly  mani- 
fest, where  out  of  unbridled  laissez-faire  procedure  and  un- 
compromising competition  of  each  producer  against  the  rest, 
we  have  seen  and  see  still  evolving  a  state  of  affairs  in  which 
combination  dominates  the  scene,  where  organization  con- 
quers disorganization,  and  where  any  one  who  obstinately  re- 
fuses to  keep  up  with  the  movement  inevitably  goes  to  the 
wall.  Community  institutions  replace  mere  individual  out- 
bursts, and  concentration  in  productive  action  is  proved  to  be 
superior  to  unorganized  output  of  energy.  The  days  of  di- 
rect competition  among  the  parties  concerned  seem  to  be 
numbered,  and  co-operation  is  coming  to  its  own.  Why  not 
say,  then,  that  war  as  well  represents  a  phase  of  the  same  or- 
der of  things,  an  initial  experiment  of  Nature  which  is  now 
being  discarded  for  something  better,  so  that  if  war  sud- 


264  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

denly  reappears  here  and  there  it  is  the  expression  of  an  ata- 
vistic reversion  to  a  state  outgrown  and  superseded?  That 
spirit  of  co-operation  which  is  coming  to  infuse  all  organic 
and  human  activity,  is  it  not  bound  to  penetrate  into  the  do- 
main of  the  relations  of  states  and  do  away  with  the  forces 
of  disruption  ?  If  indeed  we  have  read  the  signs  of  the  times 
aright,  the  God  of  militancy  is  after  all  made  of  mortal  flesh, 
and  modern  deities  and  creative  agencies  are  fast  driving 
him  out  of  the  Olympian  heights  of  supremacy  and  do- 
minion. 

To  conclude  this  section,  we  have  argued  that  from  the 
point  of  view  of  competition,  warfare  is  neither  a  necessary 
nor  a  desirable  factor,  nor  indeed  a  prevailing  process  in  Na- 
ture. Thus,  our  ideal,  negatively  considered,  excludes  war. 
Positively,  we  have  seen  so  far  that  Nature  tends  to  enhance 
the  movement  toward  co-operation  among  organisms,  and 
that  particularly  among  human  individuals  this  movement 
has  received  a  very  strong  impetus.  The  view  is  at  once  sug- 
gested that  co-operation  is  the  most  desirable,  indeed  the 
necessary,  form  of  relationship  among  individuals.  But 
proof  must  be  given  of  this  contention  before  it  is  accepted 
as  a  matter  of  fact.  Our  discussion  of  the  processes  of  Na- 
ture has  disclosed  that  competition,  as  distinguished  from 
violent  belligerency,  does  not  exclude  co-operation  and  there- 
fore allows  it;  we  will  now  take  a  step  further  and  proceed 
to  make  clear  why  co-operation  is  positively  desirable  and 
necessary  in  the  life  of  individuals  and  groups  of  individuals, 
races  and  nations. 

IV.  We  may  imagine  an  instance  of  primitive  man  who  is 
using  his  wits  and  laboring  in  order  to  secure  the  means  to 
satisfy  his  natural  needs.  He  is  instinctively  impelled  to  self- 
protection  and  to  self-preservation  in  life.  Thus  occupied, 
he  may  at  first,  upon  seeing  another  man,  try  to  kill  the  latter 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  265 

in  order  to  seize  the  stores  of  food  he  may  possess,  but  in 
process  of  time  the  former  learns  that  a  much  better  way  is 
to  USE  the  other  fellow  instead  of  eliminating  him.  Man 
discovers  this  at  the  moment  in  which  his  eyes  are  opened  to 
the  fact  that  the  other  fellow  is  a  productive  agent  as  well  as 
a  consumer,  when  he  realizes  that  the  ends  of  both  are  com- 
mon, that  both  want  food  and  that  they  can  obtain  an  ampler 
quantity,  a  superior  quality,  if  they  go  after  it  together,  than 
if  each  by  himself.  Thus  the  savage  finds  that  the  wild  beast, 
though  more  than  a  match  for  him  when  alone,  becomes  an 
easy  prey  when  with  his  own  prowess  he  combines  the  prow- 
ess of  his  fellows.  Throughout  human  development  we  find 
this  to  be  the  prime  lesson  learned  by  man  in  the  course  of 
his  evolution.  To  till  the  soil  is  a  form  of  exertion  and  strug- 
gle against  Nature,  with  the  end  of  getting  something  out  of 
her;  now,  since  all  kinds  of  plant  life  do  not  grow  on  the 
same  soil,  and  since  one  and  the  same  individual  cannot  labor 
except  on  a  very  limited  area,  if  the  other  soil  producing  the 
other  plant  necessary  to  the  one  man  is  to  be  cultivated,  ap- 
peal must  be  made  to  the  other  man.  Thus  has  the  principle 
of  the  division  of  labor  been  fundamentally  evolved.  The 
development  of  agriculture  is  the  simplest  and  earliest  mani- 
festation of  co-operation  in  a  common  task  of  forcible  ac- 
quisition from  the  same  vast  storehouse.  Industry  presents 
the  same  phenomenon  of  using  the  other  fellow  to  produce 
what  YOU  need,  and  of  his  using  you,  to  produce  what  HE 
needs,  both  working  to  subdue  the  same  total  group  of  forces, 
ultimately,  both  striving  to  conquer  the  same  enemy — the 
elements  of  Nature  which  from  the  human  viewpoint  are  un- 
organized and  aimless.  In  other  words,  given  two  individ- 
uals, A  and  B,  having,  as  they  do,  the  same  ultimate  aim  of 
discovering  and  producing  material  with  which  to  satisfy 
their  normal  needs,  it  would  be  folly  for  A  to  fight  and  kill 


£66  WAR    OR    A    UNITED    WORLD 

B,  in  that  B  in  his  turn  stands  for  a  creative  and  constructive 
agency  bringing  to  existence  material  of  which  A  is  in  need 
and  may  use  with  profit. 

Thus,  direct  warfare  between  individuals  is  not  only  ab- 
horrent to  the  moral  sensibilities,  but  unwise  and  imprudent 
as  well,  for  the  reason  that  in  the  long  run  it  reacts  injuri- 
ously upon  both  parties  concerned,  whereas  co-operation,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  useful  and  necessary  in  that  the  needs  and 
ends  of  individuals  are  similar  and  may  be  secured  in  com- 
mon to  the  advantage  of  all,  respectively.  In  a  word,  to  a 
given  individual  co-operation  is  beneficial  in  that  the  other 
fellow  is  a  productive  agent,  and  can  help  the  given  indi- 
vidual to  increase  the  output  of  the  latter. 

To  argue  further  on  this  point  is  unnecessary  because  hu- 
manity seems  to  have  learned  this  lesson  sufficiently  in  the 
painful  school  of  experience.  But  unfortunately  it  is  yet  far 
from  the  point  of  applying  this  fund  of  knowledge  to  the 
level  of  group  and  national  living.  Though  individuals  have 
agreed  to  organize  to  the  end  of  productive  activity,  nations 
and  states  have  not.  Each  state  seems  under  the  impression 
that  all  other  states  are  its  natural  enemies,  that  their  good 
is  exclusive  of  its  own,  that  the  more  it  causes  them  harm, 
permanent  or  temporary,  the  less  is  itself  in  danger  of  de- 
teriorating, and  the  less  it  helps  them  to  achieve  and  create, 
the  more  it  helps  itself  to  secure  its  own  growth.  Thus,  each 
country  is  practically  scared  when  it  finds  that  its  neighbor 
is  on  the  way  to  improvement.  You  feel  that  your  country 
must  gain  more  and  more  territory  at  the  expense  of  mine;  I 
rejoice  when  I  see  your  country  defeated  and  humiliated. 
That  man  is  considered  a  good  patriot  who  thinks  and  rea- 
sons in  terms  of  national  egotism,  whose  desires  and  senti- 
ments have  the  supremacy  of  his  own  country  as  their  ex- 
clusive aim,  an  aim  which  in  its  turn  is  to  be  realized  by  the 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  267 

diminution  of  the  vital  energies  of  the  other  countries.  For 
a  patriot  to  experience  joy  at  the  progress  made  by  this  or 
that  other  country  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  foolish  and  super- 
fluous, and  at  most,  a  criminal,  pastime.  Wars  are  waged 
for  purposes  of  aggrandizement  and  the  whole  country  ex- 
ults when  it  succeeds  in  seizing  some  territory  or  wresting 
some  other  advantage  from  the  hands  of  the  defeated  state. 
This  perversion  has  gained  ground  to  such  an  extent  that 
oftentimes  to  refer  to  a  certain  individual  as  belonging  to  a 
given  nationality  is  to  brand  him  as  morally  low  or  un- 
scrupulous, or  incompetent,  as  if,  in  individual  life,  to  be 
long-legged  or  black-haired  or  dense-whiskered  would  in- 
volve possession  of  this  or  that  quality  or  degree  of  char- 
acter. Due  to  the  same  malicious  point  of  view,  a  citizen  of 
a  certain  nationality  in  many  cases  considers  himself  and  his 
fellow-countrymen  as  normally  superior  to  the  rest,  in  point 
of  morals  as  well  as  of  intellect,  and  unconsciously  assumes 
an  attitude  of  condescension  and  even  contempt  toward  most 
of  the  rest. 

It  may  be  protested  that  we  exaggerate  things,  that  a  pa- 
triot hates  the  enemies  of  his  country,  but  loves  its  allies. 
But  what  difference  does  this  make  ?  Is  not  the  ally,  though 
ostensibly  secured  for  self-defense,  really  courted  for  pur- 
poses of  aggression  against  other  countries,  and  is  not  the 
allied  state,  then,  but  a  temporary  aid  in  putting  out  of  the 
way  the  enemy  of  the  present,  to  become  in  its  own  turn  the 
next  victim  when  the  sinister  arm  of  the  alliance  has  been 
consummated,  a  potential  enemy  in  fact  ?  It  is  admitted  gen- 
erally that  alliances  among  states,  as  contracted  nowadays, 
are  solely  of  a  political  nature,  founded  not  on  sincerity  but 
on  expediency,  whose  ends  are  realized  in  active  opposition 
to  the  welfare  and  aggrandizement  of  the  states  outside  the 
alliance.     And  yet  if  what  we  have  said  of  co-operation  in 


268  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

relation  to  the  status  of  individual  life  is  true,  is  it  not  a  for- 
tiori true  of  the  mutual  relations  of  groups  of  individuals,  of 
societies,  of  states?  We  are  convinced  that  the  deplorable 
situation,  as  just  exhibited,  is  the  result  of  entirely  wrong 
sentiments  and  mistaken  conceptions.  States  are  meant  to 
co-operate  in  productive  activity,  in  the  same  way  as  indi- 
viduals, if  they  are  meant  to  exist  and  prosper  at  all.  The 
method  of  nature  in  evolution  has  called  from  of  old  for  co- 
operation in  production,  as  well  as  for  competition  in  attain- 
ment. The  common  needs  of  life  engender  a  solidarity 
among  all  nations,  not  to  be  broken  even  though  when  op- 
posed in  action,  and  increasingly  intensifying  its  hold  all  the 
while.  To  deny  that  solidarity  is  to  close  our  eyes  to  fact,  to 
actively  resist  it  even  when  we  admit  it  as  a  fact,  is  to  work 
against  our  own  ultimate  good.  The  existing  situation  is  a 
matter  of  false  philosophy  and  of  prejudice  in  thought,  and 
a  correct  philosophy  is  called  for  to  oust  the  false.  It  is  the 
bounden  duty  of  nations  as  well  as  of  individuals  to  co- 
operate, and  there  is  no  demand  from  the  powers  that  be  for 
wars  and  destructive  conflict  between  people.  The  law  of 
evolution  is  fundamental,  but,  as  we  have  seen,  that  law  does 
not  exclude  co-operation;  rather,  it  calls  for  it.  Evolution 
means  change  for  the  better,  the  fuller,  the  fitter,  and  we 
know  that  it  is  by  co-operating  to  make  the  most  of  the  re- 
sources of  Nature  that  the  nations  can  gain  in  vitality,  by  co- 
operating to  exploit  its  mineral  and  agricultural  stores,  by 
putting  their  minds  together  in  the  invention  of  practical 
facilities  for  so  doing,  by  dividing  the  labor  among  them- 
selves in  accordance  with  the  ability  of  each  nation,  by  en- 
gaging together  in  the  harnessing  of  the  irrational  elements 
outside  man  and  to  the  yoke  of  their  common  interests.  The 
nations  are  faced  indeed  with  a  struggle,  one  that  makes  de- 
mands upon  their  latent  energies  in  the  utmost  degree,  but 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  269 

the  enemy  to  be  overcome  is  certainly  not  any  member  of 
their  own  species,  but  the  recalcitrant,  inanimate  forces  about 
them.  As  for  themselves,  the  nations  must  combine  if  they 
are  to  achieve  victory  in  the  fray.* 

Let  us  reconsider  and  recapitulate  the  argument,  as  thus 
far  pursued.  War  has  received  advocacy  on  the  supposition 
that  it  constitutes  the  agency  through  which  the  fitness  of  an 
individual  or  community  to  survive  is  determined.  Thus, 
war  is  praised  as  an  eminently  worthy  and  proper  occupa- 
tion. Moreover,  evolution  is  said  to  be  determined  by  con- 
flict and  selection  of  the  fittest,  and,  since  evolution  is  a  fun- 
damental and  necessary  law,  conflict,  as  a  means  to  its  reali- 
zation, is  inevitable.  Thus  war  is  necessary  as  well  as  de- 
sirable. 

Taking  up  both  of  these  considerations  we  denied  (I)  that 
conflict  is  necessary  for  the  carrying  out  of  the  purpose  of 
competition  and  the  achievement  of  evolution,  insisting  that 
competition  between  men  is  performed  indirectly,  with  rela- 
tion to  Nature,  as  happens  in  a  running  contest,  without  in- 
volving strife  directly  between  the  combatants ;  therefore,  we 
concluded,  the  passive  attitude  of  acquiescence  toward  the 
situation  of  war  is  not  justified.  (II)  We  denied  that  war- 
fare is  desirable  at  all  for  the  purposes  of  competition  alleg- 
ing (a)  that  war  negates  the  tendency  in  the  direction  of  co- 
operation, (b)  it  entails  destruction  and  waste,  and  (c)  it 
fails  to  serve  as  a  real  test  of  worth  among  the  competitors 
and  as  a  measure  of  survival  value;  therefore,  the  taking  of 
means  to  resist  and  get  rid  of  war  are  justified  and  called  for. 
(Ill)  Lastly,  we  denied  that  mutual  strife  is  as  prevalent  as 
it  appears,  on  the  level  of  organic  life,  and  conversely,  we  in- 
sisted that  so  far  as  such  strife  appears,  it  constitutes  an  ab- 

*For  fuller  discussion  of  the  same  topic  see  author's  "A  World-City 
of  Civilization." 


270  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

normal  growth  upon  the  body  of  Nature,  to  be  fought  against 
and  exterminated. 

Constructively,  we  pointed  out  that  co-operative  living  is 
not  excluded  by  the  legitimate  form  of  competition,  and  in 
fact  we  found  co-operation  to  be  increasingly  dominant  in 
the  various  stages  of  development  among  organisms.  Pro- 
ceeding, we  agreed  that  co-operation  is  both  desirable  and 
necessary  in  so  far  as  the  "alter"  is  a  productive  agent,  and 
his  existence  and  welfare  therefore  useful  to  his  fellow, 
whether  it  be  a  case  of  a  single  individual  or  of  a  whole 
state,  and  in  so  far  as  co-operation  is  a  means  toward  en- 
suring and  augmenting  the  productiveness  of  each  and  all 
individuals.  Furthermore,  the  actual  prevalence  of  the  co- 
operative movement  proves  that  the  latter  is  practicable. 

B. 

With  the  above  considerations  in  mind,  our  next  step 
will  be  to  discuss  the  nature  of  co-operation  in  its  character 
of  an  indispensable  element  in  our  ideal  of  organization 
among  individuals  and  peoples. 

In  effect,  such  co-operation  will  receive  embodiment  in 
terms  of  a  federation  of  all  the  states  in  the  world.  This 
conception  possesses  nothing  of  the  original  in  it;  Mr.  Car- 
negie, a  number  of  years  ago,  proposed  in  a  bold  essay,  the 
constitution  of  a  United  States  of  Europe.  Of  course,  he 
did  not  mean  to  shut  the  other  states  out,  and  it  is  obvious 
that  a  federation,  to  be  permanent,  solid  and  beneficial  to  hu- 
manity as  a  whole,  must  embrace  all  of  the  existing  states 
within  its  fold.  We  need  not  in  this  chapter  enter  into  all  the 
details  of  the  scheme,  but  successful  instances  of  the  carrying 
out  of  a  strictly  analogous  plan  may  be  noted.  Switzerland 
is  one  and  the  United  States  of  America  is  another ;  so  far  as 


ANDREW  CARNEGIE 

"THE   PEACE   MAN" 


PEACE   WITH    JUSTICE  271 

we  know,  neither  of  the  two  has  grounds  for  regretting  the 
form  of  the  constitution  it  has  adopted. 

The  basic  principles  in  the  federation  of  states  will  be  (a) 
the  conservation  of  the  freedom  of  each  state  in  all  of  its  in- 
ternal affairs,  and  (b)  the  assurance  of  action  by  each  state, 
in  unison  with  all  other  states,  in  all  matters  which  affect  the 
interests  of  all  states  in  general  and  which  derive  from  the 
fabric  of  their  natural  inter-relationship.  In  other  words, 
we  must  be  conservative  in  our  procedure  to  the  extent  of 
never  letting  the  individual  state  to  be  deprived  of  its  inalien- 
able right  to  be  master  in  its  own  house  over  all  that  is  con- 
tained therein,  and  we  must  be  positively  constructive  to  the 
extent  of  never  letting  the  organism  of  humanity  degenerate 
down  to  the  level  of  a  state  egotism,  aiming  at  the  promotion 
of  a  union  of  all  states,  through  bonds  of  legal  machinery  as 
well  as  voluntary  adjustment,  which  will  constitute  an  ef- 
fective agency  for  the  service  to  and  the  satisfaction  of  all 
interstate  ideals  and  needs. 

In  a  general  way,  the  above  furnishes  an  answer  to  the  first 
question  which  we  set  to  ourselves  in  the  beginning,  namely, 
what  is  the  desirable  and  at  once  practicable  constitution  for 
human  society  and  whether  war  is  a  necessary  element  in  the 
structure  of  the  constitution?  We  will  now  consider  more 
specifically  the  form  which  the  union  of  the  people  will  as- 
sume and  endeavor  to  anticipate  and  put  out  of  our  way  cer- 
tain objections  which  may  conceivably  be  raised  or  indeed 
have  been  raised  against  our  own  exposition  of  the  most  de- 
sirable constitution  for  the  regulation  of  the  relationships 
between  men. 

V.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  federation  as  proposed  is  to 
be  a  federation  of  states  and  may  itself  be  rightly  called  a 
universal  state — "A  United  World." 

Now,   a  very  strong  and  highly   influential   section   of 


272  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

thought  among  English-speaking  people,  whose  views  have 
been  particularly  well  expressed  by  Mr.  Lewis  Dickenson, 
raises  a  violent  protest  against  the  very  principle  of  the  state 
itself,  and  proposes  that  the  organization  of  peoples  into 
states  be  eliminated.  It  says :  Look  at  the  German  system 
— how  it  defies  the  state  at  the  detriment  of  the  free  life  of 
the  individual.  The  good  of  the  state  is  regarded  as  the  su- 
preme end  of  man,  and  to  that  good  is  the  individual  man 
ruthlessly  sacrificed.  More  specifically,  the  objection  against 
the  principle  of  the  state  which  we  uphold  runs  as  follows : 

(a)  Within  the  state  system,  the  freedom  of  the  individu- 
als is  shackled,  and  even  destroyed.  Man  lives  surrounded 
by  a  coil  of  rigid  rules  relating  to  all  practices  of  his  life, 
under  a  machine  whose  working  he  may  not  comprehend,  but 
whose  direction  he  blindly  binds  himself  to  follow.  The  ma- 
chine kills  the  man;  in  the  vast  intricacies  and  complications 
of  the  iron  organization,  no  place  is  left  for  initiative,  no 
soil  for  noble  uprisal  and  revolt,  no  demand  for  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  essentially  personal  responsibilities.  In- 
stead of  a  society  of  individuals  engaged  in  voluntary  co- 
operation, we  have  a  mass  of  puppets  led,  but  not  leading, 
with  all  the  individual  variations  crushed  into  a  powder  of 
neutral  gray.  Don't  you  see  (the  claim  goes  on)  how  true 
this  is  of  the  German  people  to-day  ?  The  state  provides  not 
only  for  the  material  but  for  the  intellectual  nourishment  of 
the  people  as  well;  it  determines  their  convictions,  it  tells 
them  what  to  believe  as  to  the  origin  of  the  war,  and  the 
people,  obedient  to  the  suggestion,  form  their  views  accord- 
ingly. The  press  is  a  servile  instrument  in  the  hands  of  the 
government;  the  press,  which,  if  anything,  is  the  mouth- 
piece par  excellence  of  the  common  man,  of  the  diligent, 
freely-thinking  individual;  the  press,  whose  mission,  if  any- 
thing, is  to  criticise  social  and  official  thought  and  practice  on 


PEACE  WITH  JUSTICE  273 

behalf  of  the  individual.  In  short,  the  ideal  of  the  state  con- 
tradicts the  ideal  of  the  individual;  it  operates  against  his 
freedom  of  action,  of  thought,  of  sentiment,  of  point  of  view. 
By  denying  to  him  the  exercise  of  these,  his  supreme  rights, 
it  works  ultimately  toward  the  extinction  within  him  of  the 
very  consciousness  of  these  noble  rights.  Consequently  the 
state  subsists  and  endures  as  a  mechanism  which  destroys  all 
that  is  distinctive  of  individuality. 

(b)  The  second  objection  to  the  state  as  a  useful  organi- 
zation for  the  people  is  based  upon  the  alleged  positive  harm 
which  the  organization  of  the  state  has  caused  and  causes 
upon  humanity  in  general,  and  upon  the  oftentimes  immoral 
character  of  the  state  activity.  The  argument  runs  thus: 
A  state  necessarily  finds  its  good  in  opposition  to  the  good  of 
the  other  states,  its  ambitions  involve  the  humiliation  of  its 
fellow-states,  their  weakening  or  their  subjection  to  itself. 
The  history  of  the  life  of  the  states  is  the  history  of  the  al- 
most incessant  wars  undertaken  for  no  valid  reason,  but  due 
to  the  fatal  opposition  between  state  and  state.  Judging  from 
history,  states  have  served  to  separate  humanity  into  belliger- 
ent groups,  to  animate  feuds  between  them,  to  provoke  wars 
among  them,  and  to  diminish  the  vitality  of  all. 

And  then,  when  it  comes  to  the  sense  of  responsibility, 
states  have  shown  themselves  absolutely  devoid  of  a  moral 
consciousness.  A  solemn  promise,  say,  is  given,  but  solely 
with  the  intention  of  lulling  the  other  party  into  unconcern, 
so  that  the  latter  may  be  unprepared  when  the  attack  against 
it  is  launched. 

Diplomacy,  (continues  our  opponent)  the  mechanism 
which  connects  state  with  state,  has  been  a  breeding- 
place  for  conspiracies,  fraud,  unscrupulous  dealings, 
covetous  and  aggressive  scheming;  indeed,  in  the  world 
of   diplomacy,   insincerity   and   hypocrisy   are   the   great- 


274  WAR    OR    A    UNITED    WORLD 

est  of  virtues.  Let  us  therefore  do  away  with  diplo- 
macy; let  us  do  away  with  the  governmental  machinery 
which  it  represents,  and  with  the  fabric  of  the  state  in  gen- 
eral. The  sphere  of  economic  and  industrial  life  compre- 
hends without  exception  all  the  forms  of  orderly  relationship 
among  societies.  Within  this  sphere,  individuals  recognize 
their  fellows,  not  as  citizens  of  this  or  that  state,  as  either 
enemies  or  allies  of  the  fatherland,  but  simply  as  producers, 
as  fellow-livers  on  this  earth,  all  working  out  their  destinies 
in  common.  For  a  German,  considered  as  he  is  naturally,  a 
laborer  making  his  living,  an  Englishman  is  another  individ- 
ual engaged  in  the  same  task,  with  whom  he  may  trade  his 
wares,  both  making  rightful  profit  of  each  other.  But  the 
vesture  of  the  state  distorts  the  mental  vision  of  the  German 
as  well  as  of  the  Englishman,  and  qua  belonging  to  this  or 
that  state,  they  see  themselves  as  potential  enemies  of  each 
other.  In  other  words,  organized  in  terms  of  the  state,  the 
people  assume  rights  which  never  touch  their  conscious  life 
as  individuals,  as  workmen  with  brawn  or  brain,  and  which 
create  divisions  among  them. 

To  be  more  specific,  the  various  European  states  have  or- 
ganized wars  against  each  other,  loudly  proclaiming  that  they 
are  going  into  battle  solely  for  ends  of  self-defense.  Yet 
one  asks:  What  has  the  Russian  peasant  to  fear  from  the 
Turkish  farmer,  and  was  the  Austrian  citizen  plotting 
against  the  prosperity  of  the  Hindoo  laborer  ?  The  individ- 
ual citizens  of  each  state  had  no  reason  to  suspect  evil  of  each 
other,  in  fact  were  in  most  cases  not  even  aware  of  the  very 
existence  of  their  fellows.  Each  one  worked  peacefully  in 
the  field,  or  in  the  shop,  or  in  the  factory,  and  it  was  a  com- 
plete surprise  to  practically  all,  to  be  informed  that  they 
must  rise  up  in  arms  in  order  to  defend  the  fatherland 
against  the  foe. 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  275 

Or  again,  a  state  may  often  organize  aggressive  wars  to 
the  end  of  gaining  territory  and  increasing  the  prosperity  of 
the  commonwealth;  the  state,  it  is  claimed,  must  grow,  and 
yet  it  is  pointed  out  by  others  that  there  is  no  relation  be- 
tween this  state  ambition  on  the  one  hand,  and  individual  am- 
bition on  the  other.  The  individual  is  in  no  wise  affected  if 
his  country  is  enlarged  by  the  addition  of  territory;  he  will 
still  plod  in  the  same  field  (in  case  he  returns  safe  from  the 
war)  ;  he  will  still  continue  in  pursuit  of  the  self-same  oc- 
cupation. 

Moreover,  the  organism  of  the  state,  by  thus  conceiving 
itself  independent  of  the  level  of  the  mere  individual,  re- 
nounces the  group  of  moral  obligations  which  hold  on  the 
level  of  the  latter,  and  determine  its  conduct  solely  on  the 
score  of  expediency. 

It  thus  becomes  obvious  that  the  state  constitutes  an  extra 
factor  in  the  life  of  the  individual,  which  (factor)  is  a  fruit- 
ful source  of  evil  and  conflict  in  that  it  introduces  a  whole 
array  of  new  interests  and  obligations  in  no  wise  relating 
themselves  to  the  individual's  own  conscious  life.  For  the 
sake,  then,  of  re-establishing  the  moral  consciousness  on  a 
solid  pedestal,  for  the  sake  of  exterminating  a  fundamental 
cause  of  feud  and  wars,  the  fabric  of  the  state  must  be 
given  up. 

VI.  So  much  for  our  opponent.  His  arguments  are  im- 
portant, but,  in  our  opinion,  the  majority  of  them  are  not 
well-taken,  and  the  conclusions  drawn  from  all  are  false,  re- 
spectively. We  may  reply  to  the  objections  as  follows :  It 
may  have  been  noticed,  perhaps,  that  we  have  let  the  oppo- 
nent of  the  state  argue  from  the  point  (a)  of  the  relation 
of  the  state  to  the  individual,  (b)  of  the  relation  of  the  state 
to  the  other  states,  urging  (a)  that  the  state  negates  the  free- 
dom of  the  individual,  (b)  that  actually  the  organization  of 


276  WAR   OR   A   UNITED   WORLD 

the  state  has  resulted,  whenever  employed,  in  the  division  of 
humanity  into  warring  groups,  in  the  introduction  of  new 
alignments  among  them  which  tend  to  provoke  armed  con- 
flicts between  them,  in  the  destruction  of  their  moral  fiber, 
and  thus  in  the  undermining  of  the  stock  of  the  vital  energies 
of  humanity. 

Now,  both  arguments  call  attention  to  empirical  conse- 
quences of  the  employment  of  the  organization  of  the  state, 
but  they  do  not  prove  that  these  consequences  issue  there- 
from necessarily.  It  may  be  true  that  throughout  the  course 
of  history  the  state  has  tended  to  crush  the  individual,  that  it 
has  abused  its  power  and  attempted  to  evade  moral  respon- 
sibility, and  finally  that  it  has  created  divisions  among  the 
people,  but  surely  it  is  foolish  to  infer  from  the  above  that 
the  state  has  forfeited  its  right  to  BE  at  all.  Any  instru- 
mentality may  be  put  to  abuse,  but  in  order  that  the  matter 
be  put  to  rights,  it  is  necessary  that  the  said  instrumentality 
be  not  rejected,  but  put  to  right  use.  An  agency  may  be  de- 
clared positively  injurious  and  fit  for  rejection  only  when  its 
employment  results  in  loss  to  humanity,  necessarily;  now, 
that  such  is  the  case,  no  proof  has  been  furnished  with  re- 
spect to  the  mechanism  of  the  state.  The  Scotchman  who 
threw  away  the  oranges  because  they  were  eatable  neither 
as  boiled  nor  as  fried,  nor  as  baked,  was  foolish  because  he 
did  not  make  the  attempt  of  eating  them  raw,  and  are  we  so 
very  sure  that  we  have  done  our  best  and  our  all  with  the 
state  ? 

(a)  It  is  complained  that  given  state-administration  the 
freedom  of  the  individual  is  endangered,  but  is  it  not  also 
true  that  given  absolute  freedom  a  state  of  anarchy  results, 
which  is  the  negation  of  freedom  itself?  And  when  or- 
ganization of  the  community  is  lacking,  do  not  efficiency 
and  work  reduce  themselves  to  a  minimum?    And  yet  hu- 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  277 

manity  must  work  and  must  achieve,  if  it  is  to  continue  in 
life.  Achievement,  in  a  sense,  is  at  once  the  end  and  the 
condition  of  life;  it  not  only  constitutes  attainment  of  the 
ideal,  but  is  the  prerequisite  for  that  condition  which  en- 
genders the  ideal.  For  we  have  seen  that  in  order  to  pro- 
vide nourishment  for  our  vital  needs  we  must  cope  against 
Nature  and  make  use  of  her  resources.  Now,  achievement 
means  securing  control  of  Nature  so  as  to  render  a  given 
group  of  her  forces  subservient  to  some  vital  need.  If, 
thus,  achievement  is  granted  to  be  a  prime  end  of  life,  then 
organization  receives  complete  justification,  for  organization 
is  the  fundamental  condition  for  efficiency  in  achievement. 
Indeed,  do  let  us  avoid  extremes ;  let  us  avoid  making  of  or- 
ganization the  only  end,  and  forgetting  the  value  of  freedom 
as  a  result,  but  neither  should  we  be  hypnotized  by  the  fair 
goddess  of  liberty  into  a  state  where  we  are  oblivious  of  the 
value  and  imperative  necessity  of  organization  as  well.  Ger- 
many may  be  now,  as  alleged,  defying  the  state — that  is  one 
extreme,  and  the  individual  suffers  accordingly ;  the  French 
Revolution  elevated  the  individual  on  the  divine  pedestal — 
which  was  another  extreme,  and  the  situation  became  so  con- 
fused that  liberty  played  directly  into  the  hands  of  tyranny. 
An  extreme  is  always  bad,  whichever  direction  it  takes,  but, 
we  repeat,  no  agency  should  be  condemned  absolutely  be- 
cause it  has  been  used  to  excess.  Moderation  is  the  car- 
dinal virtue,  as  Aristotle  taught,  and  moderation  is  neces- 
sary in  matching  the  forces  of  organization  with  the  forces 
of  freedom.  The  eminently  desirable  solution  is  one  which 
will  secure  to  the  individual  an  amount  of  freedom  compat- 
ible with  his  conveniently  uniting  with  his  fellows  in  the  exe- 
cution of  common  tasks.  To  achieve  this  is  very  difficult, 
but  not  impossible.     And  though  this  solution  may  never 


278  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

be  realized  completely,  it  must  ever  serve  as  the  goal  for  all 
efforts  to  secure  the  welfare  of  humanity. 

More  positively,  let  us  add  that  organization  properly  en- 
forced will  provide  fields  of  activity  and  realization  to  the 
individual,  surpassing  in  wealth  those  which  he  owns  as 
such,  noble  ideals  coupled  with  moral  force  for  their  at- 
tainment. Organization  should  be  the  handmaid  of  free- 
dom by  furnishing  the  mechanism  by  which  the  individual 
may  use  his  freedom  to  realize  his  ideals ;  both  organization 
and  freedom  are  necessary  to  the  highest  ends,  and,  properly 
balanced,  they  co-operate.  The  state  is  the  objective  ex- 
pression of  society  thus  organized,  and  reflects  to  itself  the 
uses  and  prerogatives  of  organization  as  mentioned. 

(b)  Secondly,  it  has  been  complained  (A)  that  states 
have  throughout  history  been  causes  of  dissensions,  and 
quarrels  among  people  who  otherwise  would  have  followed 
their  occupations,  respectively,  in  peace.  But,  however 
much  we  may  deplore  this  condition  of  affairs,  we  do  not 
see  our  way  to  concluding  that  therefore  the  organization 
of  the  state  must  be  pronounced  wanting  and  be  done  away 
with.  We  repeat :  if  things  are  bad,  let  us  make  them  bet- 
ter— it  is  only  a  coward  and  moral  weakling  that  would  shake 
the  dust  off  his  feet  from  a  task  because  that  task  is  difficult 
to  perform.  Evolution  is  a  slow  process  and  the  better  is 
always  ahead  off;  states  have  made  a  bad  beginning,  like 
most  things  human,  but  our  own  discussion  of  means  to 
insure  co-operation  among  the  peoples  is  intended  to  remedy 
this  very  situation.  We  have  found  the  consciousness  of 
solidarity  superseding  the  merely  self-regarding  instincts; 
we  have  found  that  threads  of  mutual  contact,  spiritual  as 
well  as  material,  bind  all  men  together,  and  we  need  only 
avail  ourselves  of  these  agencies,  strengthening  them  all  the 
while,  in  order  to  secure  a  victory  over  the  group  of  cen- 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  279 

trifugal  forces.  Thus,  without  committing  ourselves  to  an 
impossible  Utopia,  we  may  envisage  the  day  when,  through 
the  aid  of  the  machinery  of  federation,  wars  will  be  the 
exception  rather  than  the  rule,  co-operation  will  be  the  nor- 
mal kind  of  behavior  and  its  violation  will  be  an  act  eliciting 
upon  itself  condemnation  and  punishment. 

To  the  argument  that  the  state,  by  trampling  upon 
ethical  consideration,  has  forfeited  its  right  to  exist,  we 
reply  similarly.  International  morals  are  admittedly  on  a 
lower  plane  than  inter-individual  morals.  It  behooves, 
therefore,  all  individuals  to  concentrate  their  energies  upon 
the  task  of  infusing  a  new  and  vigorous  sense  of  responsi- 
bility into  the  stratum  of  their  group-life,  and  create  new 
ethical  ideals  for  their  collective  action.  Surely  there  is 
nothing  to  warrant  the  extremely  pessimistic  view  which 
judges  the  state  as  essentially  immoral. 

But,  it  is  rejoined,  the  nation,  in  becoming  a  state,  invests 
itself  with  a  personality  which  sets  it  off  from  other  nations 
similarly  vested — with  a  self,  pretending  to  rights  and 
claims  opposed  to  like  pretences  of  the  selves  of  other  peo- 
ples. Thus,  in  essence,  the  state  is  a  dividing  medium,  and 
by  claiming  transcendence  of  individual  life  it  aims  to 
emancipate  itself  from  the  moral  sanctions  of  the  latter. 

In  reply,  we  must  say  that  the  claims  of  the  state  to  the 
possession  of  a  personality  of  its  own  are  largely  and  in 
principle  correct.  It  is  wrong  to  consider  the  issue  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  individual  merely.  A  collection  of  in- 
dividuals— a  group — entails  contingencies  not  met  with  in 
the  consideration  of  the  units  by  themselves  respectively.  A 
society  possesses  a  reality  not  shared  by  the  individuals  sin- 
gly, and  embraces  a  plane  of  life  introducing  new  features 
and  new  interests.  A  society  is  more  than  its  members  re- 
spectively just  as  a  whole  is  more  than  its  parts  as  such.    The 


280  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

principle  just  enunciated,  though  apparently  illogical,  is  nev- 
ertheless empirically  verifiable.  The  piece  of  weight  which 
disturbs  the  equilibrium  of  the  two  pans  of  a  balance,  con- 
sists (say)  of  a  hundred  units  of  weight,  but  it  cannot  be 
said  that  the  disturbance,  as  an  effect,  is  a  resultant  of  the 
partial  weighing  down  of  each  unit  as  such  contempora- 
neously, for,  given  only  ninety-nine  of  these  units,  the 
scales  remain  unmoved  absolutely.  The  change  of  the 
equilibrium, — as  Prof.  James  once  pointed  out — is  not  the 
sum  of  the  effects  of  each  of  the  hundred  units,  but  is  a 
single  effect  caused  by  the  new  element  introduced  by  the 
combination  of  the  hundred  together.  Again,  in  the  realm 
of  labor,  the  work  performed  by  many  people  working  to- 
gether is  more  in  quantity  and  different  in  quality  from  the 
sum  of  results  achieved  by  as  many  people  working  sep- 
arately. So,  in  general,  a  society  constitutes  a  new  plane 
on  which  appear  new  forces  and  effects.  A  collection  of  in- 
dividuals, in  other  words,  may  possess  and  does  possess  in- 
terests and  needs  not  felt  by  each  individual  in  the  collection, 
and  in  this  sense,  it  may  be  said  with  truth  that  the  com- 
bination of  many  personalities  into  a  community  creates  a 
new  personality.  We  may  instance  as  analogous  the  fact 
that  an  organism  is  a  collection  of  a  multiplicity  of  small 
organic  units,  yet  the  collective  organism  lives  a  whole  life 
of  its  own,  with  its  good  and  demands  as  such.  Hence  we 
may  once  for  all  agree  that  a  community  should  not  be  re- 
duced, in  discussion,  to  the  status  of  its  members  respec- 
tively, neither  should  its  ends  be  calculated  and  ascertained 
in  terms  of  those  of  its  members  solely. 

Now,  individuals  possess  rights  bearing  upon  the  region 
of  their  mutual  relationship,  and  the  state  is  but  the  organi- 
zation of  men  together  in  terms  of  their  rights.  Hence  the 
state  is  society  in  one  of  its  aspects,  and  whatever  has  been 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  281 

said  of  society  in  general  applies  with  equal  force  to  society- 
existing  as  a  state.  There  is  nothing  artificial  or  conven- 
tional in  the  organization  of  individuals  into  a  state.  The 
latter  constitutes  a  stage  in  the  natural  evolution  of  organic 
life,  and  consequently  it  implies  a  lack  of  historical  perspec- 
tive to  argue  as  if  states  were  luxuries  within  the  life  of  so- 
ciety— external  guises  entailing  abnormal  and  unnatural  sit- 
uations. Of  course,  man  is  free  to  dissolve  the  state,  deny 
the  fact  of  his  social  nature,  and  live  in  rampant  individual- 
ism. But  he  must  realize  that  in  so  doing  he  is  unmaking 
an  achievement  of  Nature  and  retracing  the  steps  of  evolu- 
tion, in  order  to  return  to  the  regime  of  pre-human  or  rather 
pre-civilized  life. 

Now,  one  community  is  offset  from  another  community 
in  so  far  as  each  possesses  a  personality  of  its  own,  and  so 
is  a  state  from  a  state,  so  that  a  given  state  may  possess 
rights  of  its  own  in  relation  to  another  state,  which  do  not 
issue  from  its  citizens  individually.  In  such  case,  the  in- 
dividual must  simply  unite  in  spirit  with  the  life  of  the 
community  as  such  in  order  to  appreciate  the  distinctive  end 
for  which  the  fatherland  is  striving.  Nevertheless,  (a) 
nothing  justifies  the  state  in  acknowledging  and  pursuing  a 
good  permanently  opposed  to  that  of  its  individual  citizens. 
In  so  far,  our  opponents  are  right.  It  is  wrong  for  the 
state  to  sever  its  life  from  that  of  its  individual  members 
and  work  its  own  salvation  independently  of  theirs.  We 
cannot  deny  that  thus  far  states  have  succumbed  to  the 
temptation,  but  we  cannot  agree  that  consequently  the  state 
is  necessarily  doomed  to  die.  The  state  is  real  and  it  pos- 
sesses a  good  of  its  own,  but  that  good  is  realized  to  the 
fullest  extent  when  founded  upon  the  diligent  culture  of  the 
good  of  each  individual  unit  in  the  group.     When  once  this 


282  WAR    OR    A    UNITED    WORLD 

truth  is  recognized,  the  individuals  will  subsist  no  longer  as 
subjects  but  as  citizens  of  the  state. 

The  same  truth  applies  with  respect  to  the  relation  of  the 
state  not  only  to  its  constituent  members  but  (b)  to  other 
states  as  well.  Although  people  organize  themselves  into  a 
variety  of  communities  and  states,  they  do  not  thereby  neces- 
sarily divide  themselves  from  each  other  by  impassable  bar- 
riers of  hatred  and  discord.  We  have  already  argued  the 
matter  out,  and  need  not  argue  again  that  the  states  do  not 
necessarily  repel  each  other  and  that  their  interests  are  not 
irreconcilable,  that,  on  the  contrary,  a  unity,  a  federation  of 
states,  is  desirable,  and,  as  in  line  with  the  evolving  process, 
is  within  the  sphere  of  possibility.  Humanity  constitutes, 
as  it  were,  a  magnetic  field  where  individuals  and  communi- 
ties are  attracted  to  each  other,  and  the  purpose  of  the  fed- 
eration, as  outlined,  is  precisely  the  realization  of  that  set 
of  conditions  which  are  required  in  the  fulfilment  of  the 
good  of  each  state. 

We  have  agreed,  so  far,  that  the  good  of  the  state  essen- 
tially runs  counter  neither  to  the  good  of  the  individual 
members  nor  to  that  of  the  other  states.  We  must  (c)  also 
insist  that  the  state  should  acknowledge  moral  obligations  to 
the  fullest.  Prom  the  fact  that  society  transcends  the  plane 
of  individual  life,  it  does  not  follow  by  any  means  that  the 
organism  of  society  is  independent  of  moral  considerations. 
The  view  that  the  state  stands  beyond  the  moral  plane,  enun- 
ciated by  German  militarists  and  their  disciples  in  other 
countries,  is  fundamentally  false.  The  view  may  be  traced 
in  the  old  tradition  which  conceives  government  as  theoretic 
and  in  the  maxim  that  the  king  is  divinely  appointed  and 
that  consequently  he  can  do  no  wrong.  The  king  is  the 
concrete  representative  of  the  state,  and  what  is  true  of  the 
former  must  of  course  be  true  of  the  latter  as  well. 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  283 

Now,  humanity  has  always  felt  the  temptation  of  defying 
moral  authority  whenever  intoxicated  with  power.  Thus  it 
has  defended  the  dictum  that  "might  makes  right."  But 
does  not  the  individual  man  himself  assume  the  same  atti- 
tude toward  the  rest  of  the  animal  world,  from  which  he 
has  evolved  and  than  which  he  has  ascended  a  step  higher,  in 
consistently  looking  at  it  as  a  food  for  his  stomach  and  thus 
judging  of  the  animals'  worth  by  the  measure  of  their  rela- 
tion to  his  own  wants,  and  in  determining  their  right  to 
exist  by  their  usefulness  to  himself,  without  regard  to  the 
vital  needs  of  the  animals  as  such,  and  of  their  worth  to 
themselves?  This  illustration  serves  merely  to  show  the 
extent  and  force  of  the  temptation,  but  it  does  not  justify 
in  the  least  the  actual  conditions  with  respect  to  the  claims 
and  conduct  of  the  state.  In  precisely  so  far  as  the  state 
is  a  unit,  an  organic  entity,  it  sustains  relations  to  its  con- 
stituent members  and  to  other  similar  units,  and  in  these  re- 
lationships it  necessarily  is  subject  to  the  demands  of  right, 
and  of  the  welfare  of  all  the  parties  involved  in  the  relation- 
ship. The  solidarity  which  subsists  as  between  state  and 
state  automatically  elevates  the  interstate  relationship  on 
the  height  of  the  moral  plane  and  creates  serious  obligations 
on  behalf  of  each  state  to  the  rest  of  its  fellows.  Therefore 
the  state  has  no  right,  by  putting  forth  the  plea  of  necessity, 
to  pit  the  claims  of  selfishness  against  the  claims  of  solidarity 
and  moral  obligation.  Germany's  violation  of  the  neutral- 
ity of  Belgium,  Serbia's  complicity  in  the  assassination  of 
the  Austrian  heir  to  the  throne,  Russia's  and  England's  ex- 
ploitation of  Persia,  the  unscrupulous  conduct  of  the  Roman 
emperors,  the  immoderate  ambitions  of  Louis  XIV  and 
Napoleon,  all  these  are  glaring  instances  of  application  of 
the  doctrine  that  the  state  dictates  right  but  is  not  itself  sub- 
ject to  it.     Animals  are  non-moral  agents,  but  they  are  ani- 


284  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

mals,  and  to  rise  beyond  morals  is  to  fall  to  the  level  of  the 
brute;  to  evolve  higher  and  higher  is  to  penetrate  further 
and  further  into  the  field  of  moral  considerations.  To  un- 
derstand the  situation  in  this  light  is  to  realize  that  a  prime 
task  of  humanity  is  the  creation  of  a  moral  consciousness  of 
the  state,  in  other  words,  the  moralization  of  the  state,  in 
order  that  in  the  future  its  actions  may  be  determined  in 
accordance  with  the  demands  of  duty  and  the  sense  of  right 
and  wrong. 

Thus,  we  complete  our  discussion  of  the  validity  of  the 
concept  of  the  state,  and  we  may  summarize  as  follows : — 
Against  our  plan  to  organize  humanity  in  terms  of  a  feder- 
ation of  all  states  it  has  been  protested  that  the  units  of  the 
federation  should  not  be  states,  for  states  have  proved  in- 
jurious to  the  best  interest  of  humanity,  as  follows :  I.  States 
have  tended  to  crush  the  individual  and  his  freedom.  II. 
They  have  sowed  dissensions  among  men  and  violated  all 
moral  considerations,  by  setting  up  fictitious  claims  to  goods 
of  their  own  and  pretences  to  emancipation  from  individual 
needs  and  usages.  Consequently  humanity  must  dispense 
with  the  organization  of  the  state.  Against  this  position  we 
have  argued  as  follows:  (I)  Society  in  a  sense  possesses  an 
indefinable  personality  of  its  own,  not  reducible  to  a  mere 
sum  of  individual  personalities — therefore  its  good  and  in- 
terests are  not  completely  calculable  on  the  basis  of  the  in- 
terests of  its  members  taken  severally.  (II)  The  state  is  a 
particular  embodiment  of  the  social  personality,  with  re- 
spect to  the  mutual  relationship  of  its  members  in  terms  of 
their  natural  rights,  and  as  such  the  state  is  a  normal  product 
in  the  evolution  of  society.  Therefore,  the  state  stands  for 
a  reality  as  such  and  constitutes  an  organism  which  must  be 
recognized  and  dealt  with  in  all  discussion  as  to  the  co-or- 
dination of  the  forces  of  humanity,  a  reality  which  cannot 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  285 

be  ignored,  treated  as  a  mere  convention  or  tossed  lightly 
aside  as  if  it  were  an  abnormal  phenomenon.  (Ill)  We  fur- 
ther suggested  that  in  pronouncing  judgment  the  state  should 
not  be  condemned  per  se,  on  the  basis  of  ill  consequences 
which  may  have  resulted  from  its  employment,  unless  such 
consequences  have  issued  from  its  very  nature  and  are  es- 
sential to  it.  After  careful  consideration,  we  concluded  that 
the  defects  in  the  employment  of  the  organization  of  the 
state  are  due  to  the  fact  that  the  state  is  yet  in  the  early 
stages  of  its  evolution,  and  hence  that  such  defects  are  acci- 
dental and  not  permanently  bound  to  it;  that  (IV)  a  state, 
instead  of  necessarily  opposing  the  liberty  of  its  members, 
on  the  contrary  should  tend  to  conserve  it  and  furnish  a  soil 
for  its  effective  use;  that.  (V)  the  good  of  the  state,  (a)  in- 
stead of  being  opposed  to  the  good  of  its  members,  on  the 
contrary  is  fulfilled  most  perfectly  when  embracing  the  ful- 
fillment of  all  individual  goods ;  that  the  same  interest  of  the 
state  (b)  instead  of  being  exclusive  of  the  interests  of  the 
other  states,  receives  its  satisfaction  through  the  medium  of 
a  common  satisfaction  of  the  interests  of  all  states,  and  that 
consequently,  not  divisions  and  war,  but  co-operation  and 
federation  make  up  the  natural  atmosphere  from  which  the 
state  may  draw  nourishment  (VI) ;  finally,  that  the  state,  in 
so  far  as  it  sustains  relation  with  other  organic  units,  in- 
dividuals as  well  as  states, — all  of  which  are  bound  by  bonds 
of  solidarity  with  each  other — the  state,  we  say,  comes  un- 
der the  sway  of  the  moral  imperative,  and  is  under  the  ob- 
ligation to  regulate  its  acts  in  accordance  with  moral  stand- 
ards. In  so  far  as  the  state  has  failed  to  keep  true  to  its 
own  ideal  thus  analyzed,  it  has  wandered  off  the  narrow 
path,  and  must  be  guided  back  into  wisdom. 

3.  We  have  agreed  after  laborious    discussion  that    the 
units  of  our  federation  must  be  states,  and  we  have  laid 


286  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

down  the  two  conditions  that  (a)  the  state  should  not 
actively  or  passively  oppose  the  good  of  its  members,  and 
(b)  that  the  state  should  be  a  moral  agent.  A  third  condi- 
tion is  that  the  members  of  the  society  embodied  in  the  state 
should  all  be  of  the  same  nationality;  in  other  words,  that 
the  dividing  lines  between  states  should  run  parallel  with 
those  of  nationality.  No  nation  should  be  made  or  kept 
subject  to  another  nation;  any  given  nation's  rights  are  equal 
to  the  right  of  any  other  given  nation,  and  no  one  nation  has 
the  right  to  pry  into  the  private  affairs  of  another.  All  na- 
tions must  be  awarded  a  co-ordinate  ranking  in  the  general 
federation,  for  otherwise  the  union  can  lay  no  claim  to  per- 
manency and  to  immunity  from  germs  of  war.  A  nation 
feels  to  its  very  core  its  right  to  be  free  in  the  world  of  its 
own  affairs,  and  will  without  doubt  fight,  if  deprived  of  the 
enjoyment  of  that  right,  until  it  secures  possession  of  its 
freedom.  War  is  indeed  right  when  it  is  the  only  alterna- 
tive to  slavery,  and  war  is  unavoidable  in  a  situation  which 
involves  the  subjection  of  one  nation  to  another.  Conse- 
quently, to  prevent  war,  we  must  eliminate  the  said  situa- 
tion. Now,  as  our  federation  is  intended  to  form  an  or- 
ganization from  which  war  will  be  excluded,  the  union  must 
respect  the  rights  of  each  nation  to  freedom,  and  must  be 
established  on  the  basis  of  "one  nation,  one  unit,"  or  at 
least,  in  case  one  state  embraces  more  than  one  nation,  as  in 
Switzerland,  all  nations  in  that  state  must  enjoy  equal  rights 
with  respect  to  each  other.  The  grounds  on  which  this  con- 
dition is  based  are  (I)  considerations  of  right,  as  we  have 
just  seen,  (II)  considerations  of  expediency.  With  respect 
to  both  we  may  add  that  the  principle  of  domination  has 
been  tried  throughout  history  as  a  means  of  organizing  na- 
tions into  a  unity,  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  verdict  is 
against  it,  because  (a)  domination  is  immoral,  in  that  it  in- 


PEACE   WITH    JUSTICE  287 

volves  violation  of  the  rights  of  the  subject  nation,  and  (b) 
an  organization  in  terms  of  domination  is  unstable  and  is 
destined  to  die,  for  the  reason  that  the  subject  nation  will 
one  day  reassert  its  right  and  will  overturn  the  dominant 
nation.  Turkey,  a  few  centuries  ago,  was  an  immense  em- 
pire embracing  many  different  peoples  under  its  sway. 
Nowadays,  it  has  shrunk  into  a  mere  fraction  of  its  former 
size  and  is  in  imminent  danger  of  going  out  of  existence. 
The  system  of  Imperialism  bears  within  itself  the  seeds  of 
decay. 

These  considerations  are  especially  pertinent  in  view  of 
the  situation  created  by  the  Great  War.  That  peace  will  be 
an  illusory  and  fugitive  peace  which  will  set  its  seal  on  the 
apportionment  of  this  and  that  people  as  prizes  to  the  vic- 
tor. The  custom  of  regarding  persons  as  property  dates 
from  the  epoch  of  our  savage  ancestors.  Now,  it  is  fast 
dying  out  before  the  active  assertion  by  the  individual  of 
his  inalienable  right  to  freedom.  The  custom  of  reducing 
groups  of  persons  into  property  is  a  similarly  savage  cus- 
tom, but,  unfortunately,  has  not  yet  died  out.  But  it  is  be- 
ginning to  expire,  and  it  will  die  completely  when  the  truth 
has  been  fully  realized  that  no  spiritual  unit  may  be  pos- 
sessed, exploited,  or  deprived  of  authority  over  its  own 
actions,  and  that  humanity's  only  legitimate  possession  is 
the  collection  of  forces  of  Nature  outside  and  about  it.  We 
therefore  definitely  provide  against  union  through  domina- 
tion and  stand  for  organization  in  terms  of  equal  rights  for 
all  nations.  Federation  in  such  fashion  may  claim  approval 
not  only  on  the  negative  ground  that  no  member  of  the 
group  will  be  provided  with  cause  to  complain  on  the  score 
of  curtailment  or  deprivation  of  rights,  but  on  the  positive 
ground  as  well  that  the  federation  will  endow  each  nation 
with  a  wide  field  for  self -development  by  making  available 


288  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

for  its  use   the  machinery  of  an  all-pervasive    co-operative 
activity. 

I.  But  at  this  juncture  we  are  met  with  protests  from  a 
different  quarter,  namely,  the  group  of  people  consisting  of 
the  advocates  of  cosmopolitanism.  By  this  party,  stress  is 
laid  on  the  historical  fact  that  the  division  of  humanity  into 
different  races  has  been  a  fruitful  source  of  wars  and  dis- 
sensions in  general,  and  it  is  argued,  as  a  result,  that  human- 
ity should  take  means  to  transcend  the  variations  of  na- 
tionality and  unite  itself  into  one  comprehensive  society. 
"My  country  is  the  whole  world,  and  my  nation  is  human- 
ity"— so  runs  their  slogan.  Now,  to  start  with,  we  must  dis- 
tinguish this  view  from  the  other,  already  discussed,  which 
maintains  that  the  component  groups  of  humanity  should  be 
organized  on  a  basis  other  than  the  fabric  of  the  state.  The 
latter  enters  no  protest  against  the  fact  of  the  multiplicity 
of  nations,  but  opposes  their  organization  into  states;  the 
doctrine  of  cosmopolitanism,  on  the  other  hand,  approves  of 
the  state,  but  not  of  the  variety  of  the  nations;  in  sum,  it 
demands  the  constitution  of  all  members  of  humanity  under 
an  all-embracing  state,  where  "there  is  neither  Jew  nor 
Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free."  Such  an  ideal  pos- 
sesses undoubtedly  many  attractions  for  the  pacificist  and 
indeed  for  any  genuine  altruist.  One  who  senses  one's 
solidarity  with  all  others  feels  profoundly  dissatisfied  with 
that  spirit  of  nationality  which  directs  the  sentiment  of  pa- 
triotism to  one's  own  country  only,  preventing  the  attach- 
ment of  loyalty  to  nations  other  than  one's  own.  Neverthe- 
less, we  feel  that  cosmopolitanism  is  neither  a  desirable  nor 
a  practicable  ideal. 

II.  (a)  As  to  the  evils  of  nationality,  we  agree  that  they 
are  serious,  but  not  such  as  to  justify  a  final  decision  pro 
or  con.     Variety  of  nations  implies  the  fact  of  distinction, 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  289 

but  not  necessarily  opposition.  Differences  exist,  but  dif- 
ferences are  not  divisions,  much  less  need  they  cause  mutual 
repulsion.  Such  patriotism  which  demands  hatred  of  for- 
eign countries  is  a  bad  and  unworthy  sentiment.  But  pa- 
triotism need  not  be  egotistic;  if,  thus  far,  it  has  tended  to 
be  exclusive  in  spirit,  education  is  called  for  to  train  people 
to  feel  such  a  love  toward  their  own  countries,  respectively, 
as  will  not  entail  ignorance  of,  indifference  to,  or  hatred  of, 
other  countries.  In  other  words,  there  is  no  warrant  for 
condemning  nationalism  in  principle  for  the  abuse  for  which 
it  has  been  made  a  tool.  There  is  undeniably  the  possibility 
of  a  morally  higher  and  more  comprehensive  spirit  of  na- 
tionalism, to  which  humanity  should  aspire. 

(b)  The  ideal  of  unity  in  homogeneity  is  absolutely  un- 
satisfactory; variety  is  necessary  as  well  as  unity.  The 
spirit  of  nationality  expresses  the  individuality  of  the  group, 
and  individuality  means  difference  because  it  means  origi- 
nality. This  world  would  surely  be  a  humdrum  sort  of  a 
habitation  if  all  men  had  been  completely  similar  in  physi- 
cal appearance  and  in  point  of  mental  traits.  It  would 
moreover  lose  not  only  its  charm,  but  most  of  its  efficiency 
as  well.  So,  each  nation,  by  preserving  its  individual  iden- 
tity, contributes  something  all  its  own,  something  original, 
something  which  cannot  be  otherwise  brought  about,  to  the 
common  stock.  The  federation  of  humanity,  by  letting  each 
nation  give  its  own  individual  mite,  will  be  the  richer  in 
capital  and  in  profits,  and  the  unity  thus  achieved  will  be 
analogous  to  a  visual  harmony  of  all  the  different  colors,  in 
contrast  to  the  neutral  homogeneity  of  the  simple  grey. 

(c)  With  respect  to  the  position  that  the  sentiment  of 
loyalty  should  be  directed  to  humanity  as  a  whole  instead  of 
to  each  country  we  point  out  that  as  a  matter  of  psychologi- 
cal necessity    an  emotion  loses  its  force  if  spread  out  and 


290  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

directed  on  too  broad  and  vague  an  object.  A  sentiment 
must  be  concentrated  in  order  that  it  be  strong,  and  its  ob- 
ject must  be  consequently  concrete  and  individual.  I.  The 
natural  group  therefore  is  called  upon  to  serve  precisely  as 
a  lens  to  focalize  man's  sentiment  of  loyalty  to  all  human 
beings,  so  that  one  may  love  all  humanity  in  loving  one's 
own  nation.  II.  From  the  moral  point  of  view,  the  rock 
of  solidarity  upon  which  the  fabric  of  humanity  is  founded 
must  receive  support  from  pillars  not  of  individuals  as  such, 
but  of  groups  of  individuals,  i.  e.,  of  nations.  III.  The 
same  arrangement  of  division  in  groups  assures  more  effi- 
ciency in  action.  A  collection  of  individuals,  to  be  effective, 
must  be  appropriately  small  in  numbers,  in  order  to  facili- 
tate exchange  and  in  general  mutual  communications  be- 
tween the  members.  Humanity  can  pursue  the  satisfaction 
of  its  ideal  needs  only  by  subdividing  itself  into  collective 
units  each  of  which  will  concentrate  its  energies  upon  a  con- 
crete task  and  labor  to  execute  it.  Patriotism  is  indeed  an 
immense  force  which  must  not  be  shackled  or  killed,  but  be 
reformed  and  directed  into  right  channels;  through  patriot- 
ism to  his  country,  an  individual  is  led  even  to  sacrifice  his 
life  for  the  good  of  his  own  nation,  and  indirectly  for  the 
good  of  humanity. 

The  above  considerations,  namely,  (a)  that  nationality  is 
not  necessarily  a  disruptive  force,  neither  patriotism  a  sel- 
fish sentiment;  (b)  that  the  multiplicity  of  nationalities  in- 
troduces the  useful  elements  of  variety  and  individuality 
into  the  make  up  of  humanity;  (c)  that  nationality  does  not 
break  human  solidarity,  but,  on  the  contrary,  expresses  it  in 
a  particular  fashion,  and  (d)  that  the  distribution  of  people 
into  nationalities  contributes  to  concentrate  and  crystallize 
the  disposition  of  each  individual  to  serve  humanity,  and 
helps  to  increase  the  measure  of  efficiency  in  the  realization 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  291 

of  this  service — the  above  considerations  we  repeat,  lead  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  elimination  of  nationality  as  a  factor 
in  human  life  is  undesirable.  The  following  and  final  con- 
sideration is  intended  to  show  that  the  project  of  the  elimi- 
nation of  nationality  is  impracticable  as  well ;  that,  in  other 
words,  the  doctrine  of  cosmopolitanism  inevitably  breaks  to 
pieces  on  the  hard  rock  of  the  natural  instincts. 

III.  At  no  time  has  the  spirit  of  nationality  asserted  itself 
in  more  vigorous  manner  than  at  the  present.  The  joining 
of  the  individual's  fortune  with  the  fortunes  of  a  given  group 
happens  instinctively  and  not  conventionally.  The  bond  of 
nationality  is  a  fact  which  must  be  reckoned  with  as  a  force 
to  be  brought  under  useful  control,  and  any  project  to  de- 
stroy it  by  violence  seems  destined  to  fail.  And  further,  it 
is  an  admitted  fact  that  considerations  of  geography  are  fun- 
damental in  the  shaping  of  the  traits  and  features  of  man. 
Now,  owing  to  the  difference  of  climatic  and  topographic 
conditions  upon  the  surface  of  the  earth,  men  are  naturally 
differentiated  into  tribal  and  racial  groups,  each  with  its  own 
special  characteristics  traceable  in  their  origin,  respectively, 
to  the  peculiarity  of  the  geography  of  their  habitation.  Now, 
race  is  the  chief,  though  not  the  sole,  constituent  factor  in 
nationality,  and  consequently,  since  these  geographical  dif- 
ferences in  the  soil  and  climate  can  never  be  obliterated  to 
any  appreciable  extent,  distinction  into  national  groups  seems 
to  be  a  natural  and  unavoidable  process.  Thus,  from  both 
of  the  above  points  of  view,  it  becomes  evident  that  the  ideal 
of  cosmopolitanism,  or  of  the  abolition  of  nationality,  can- 
not be  realized. 

4.  We  stand  therefore  approved,  by  ourselves,  at  least,  and 
by  our  readers,  we  hope,  as  to  our  initial  position  that  the 
state-unit  will  be  conserved  in  the  federation,  and  that  the 
state  will  be  organized  on  the  basis  of  nationality.    We  will 


292  WAR   OR    A    UNITED    WORLD 

now  consider  how  the  federation  will  serve  to  prevent  the 
occurrence  of  wars,  an  event  which  we  have  concluded  is  un- 
necessary and  undesirable,  and  how,  if  wars  arise,  the  federa- 
tion will  deal  with  them.  We  have  urged  that  the  federation 
will  embody  the  ideal  of  co-operation  as  against  the  ideal  of 
mutual  conflict,  but  an  ideal,  we  must  remember,  is  not  iden- 
tical with  an  attainment,  and  there  will  always  be  a  falling 
short  of  the  ideal,  to  a  varying  extent.  Organization  will  be 
the  rule  and  recognition  of  the  rights  of  the  other  states  the 
normal  attitude,  but  the  condition  of  war  will  not  be  excluded 
as  a  possibility  or  as  a  fact ;  nevertheless,  the  occurrence  of 
war  will  be  within  the  bounds  of  expectation  solely  as  an 
exception,  a  violation  of  the  accepted  custom  and  of  the  pre- 
scribed law.  Hence  the  establishment  of  federation,  al- 
though not  implying  necessarily  the  cessation  of  war,  will 
mean  making  of  it  an  abnormal  occurrence,  from  the  legal 
as  well  as  from  the  purely  natural  point  of  view,  to  be  dealt 
with  as  it  arises.  What,  then,  will  be  the  attitude  of  the  fed- 
eration toward  the  problem  of  war;  how,  we  repeat,  will  it 
aim  to  prevent  its  occurrence  ? 

(a)  The  machinery  of  federation  will  be  objectified 
through  a  legislative  assembly,  a  judicial  tribunal,  and  an 
executive  body,  the  personnel  of  all  of  which  will  possess 
an  international  character.  Now,  war,  to  a  large  extent, 
arises  as  a  protest  against  injustice,  but  the  federation,  be- 
cause of  its  transcendence  of  strictly  national  bonds,  will  be 
enabled  to  treat  all  states  fairly  and  impartially.  The  gov- 
erning assemblies  will,  it  is  presumed,  owing  to  their  inter- 
national character,  give  attention  to  the  needs  of  each  state 
in  the  union,  and  as  far  as  is  humanly  possibly  endeavor  to 
satisfy  the  legitimate  demands  of  each  state  and  prevent  the 
exploitation  of  one  state  by  another,  (b)  Through  its  rep- 
resentative legislative  assembly,  in  particular,  the  federation 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  293 

will  labor  toward  the  creation  of  a  comprehensive  system  of 
law  relating  to  the  mutual  adjustment  of  the  rights  of  all 
states,  and  bearing  in  general  on  all  interstate  situations,  so 
as  to  anticipate  any  difficulty  which  might  arise  between 
states  or  indicate  by  anticipation  the  method  of  its  solution, 
(c)  A  fruitful  cause  of  wars  and  desire  for  wars  at  the 
present  is  admittedly  the  fact  that  each  state  is  armed  to  its 
very  teeth  with  appropriate  tools  of  defense  and  offense,  so 
that,  the  instrument  being  ready  and  fit,  the  disposition  to 
put  the  instrument  to  use  is  fanned  and  intensified.  The 
tool  runs  away,  so  to  speak,  with  the  hand  which  uses  it,  and 
the  state  becomes  hypnotized  by  the  size  and  strength  of  its 
armaments  into  a  mental  state  which  compels  it  to  provoke 
a  situation  in  which  the  armaments  may  be  employed  as  in- 
tended. Moreover,  given  that  one  state  is  more  strongly 
armed  than  another  state,  the  former  will  always  be  tempted 
to  attack  the  latter  with  aggressive  purposes.  Now,  in  the 
Union  of  the  States,  as  planned,  no  individual  state  will  be 
permitted  to  equip  itself  with  either  an  army  or  a  navy.  The 
state  will,  of  course,  possess  its  own  police  force  for  the  pur- 
pose of  maintaining  order  within  its  borders,  but  not  any 
armed  force  whose  field  of  operation  may  lie  outside  the  bor- 
ders of  the  state  itself,  in  the  sphere  of  its  relations  with  oth- 
er states.  For,  obviously,  this  sphere  of  the  relations  among 
states  is  an  interstate  affair  and  a  matter  to  be  controlled  and 
regulated  by  the  Federal  authorities.  In  acknowledgment 
of  the  same  principle,  under  the  present  system  of  govern- 
ment, individuals  within  a  state  are  forbidden  to  carry  arms 
on  their  persons,  respectively,  as  instruments  of  offense  or 
defense,  and  it  is  the  state  itself  which  is  expected  to  deal 
with  the  situation  relatively  to  the  adjustment  of  the  rights 
of  one  with  the  rights  of  other  individuals.  Now,  since  sim- 
ilarly, offense  and  defense,  when  the  parties  concerned  are 


294  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

states,  are  affairs  exceeding  the  jurisdiction  of  the  individual 
state  as  such,  the  authority  and  agency  to  deal  with  the  situ- 
ation will  be  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  the  latter,  and  be 
vested  in  those  of  the  general  union.  In  this  way,  a  particu- 
lar cause  of  war,  consisting  in  the  intoxication  of  the  state  by 
the  possession  of  excessive  armaments,  will  be  eliminated, 
(d)  The  creation  of  law  does  not  as  such  insure  its  own  en- 
forcement, and,  no  matter  how  many  possible  pretexts  for 
engaging  in  warfare  are  done  away  with,  the  states  will  in  all 
probability  be  apt,  oftentimes,  to  trample  on  each  other's 
rights,  and  thus  create  situations  where  vigorous  action  by 
the  Federal  authorities  will  be  necessary.  Under  this  head- 
ing, therefore,  we  will  consider  punative  measures  for  the 
prevention  of  war,  which  will  aim  more  specifically  to  both 
prevent  the  occurrence  of  war  at  all  and  to  bring  war  to  a 
stop  when  it  has  once  begun.  To  this  purpose,  the  govern- 
ment of  the  federation  will  maintain  a  judicial  tribunal 
which  will  judge  between  all  states  among  whom  differences 
may  arise,  and,  when  an  actual  offense  has  been  committed 
against  the  law,  will  cause  punishment  to  be  administered  to 
the  offender. 

The  instruments  of  punishment  will  be  twofold — economic 
'pressure  and  the  use  of  armed  force.  The  former  will  con- 
sist in  the  maintenance  of  a  commercial  boycott  against  the 
offending  state,  enforced,  if  necessary,  by  the  establishment 
of  a  blockade  by  the  sea,  and  the  placing  of  an  adequate  force 
of  frontier  guards  on  land,  the  prohibition  of  the  granting  of 
any  credit  to  the  state  in  its  financial  transactions,  and  in 
general  cutting  off  of  all  business  on  the  part  of  the  rest  with 
the  said  state.  The  use  of  armed  force  will  be  effected  when- 
ever occasion  arises  by  the  sending  of  a  sufficient  portion  of 
the  Federal  army  or  navy  or  both  to  the  precincts  of  the  of- 
fending state  and  by  threatening  to  compel  the  latter  to  com- 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  295 

ply  with  law  by  force.  If  the  state  refuses  to  yield,  the  mil- 
itary force  will  invade  the  state  and  take  all  necessary  meas- 
ures until  the  state  agrees  to  subject  itself  to  the  Federal  au- 
thority and  comply  with  the  rulings  of  the  judicial  tribunal. 
At  this  point  we  are  confronted  with  a  vehement  protest 
issuing  from  the  party  of  extreme  pacificists,  to  the  effect 
that  our  remedial  measures  are  half  or  no  measures  and  that 
we  foolishly  propose  to  end  war  by  adding  more  to  it,  and 
that  though  armed  force  has  been  decried  as  the  bane  of  hu- 
manity, such  force  is  still  suggested  for  employment.  To 
this  we  reply  (a)  that  we  decidedly  do  not  propose  to  end 
war  through  war.  The  use  of  armed  force  constitutes  war 
when,  and  only  when,  the  parties  engaged  in  using  the  force 
are  individual  states  settling  their  quarrels  among  them- 
selves; but  when  force  is  used  by  an  independent  organiza- 
tion for  the  purpose  of  the  administration  of  justice  such  use 
constitutes  not  warfare,  but  punishment.  Qnce  the  federa- 
tion is  established,  any  actual  offense  committed  will  be  di- 
rected not  against  this  or  that  state,  but  against  the  Federal 
law;  there  will  be  a  case  not  of  a  state  defending  itself,  but 
of  the  law  putting  itself  to  rights.  In  other  words,  war  as  an 
armed  conflict  occurs  in  a  situation  anteceding  the  establish- 
ment of  law,  a  situation  where  the  relation  between  the  states 
is  personal,  so  to  speak,  and  arbitrary,  and  where  the  force  is 
used  in  the  ends  of  revenge  for  a  wrong  inflicted,  or  of  the 
satisfaction  of  aggressive  instincts;  but  where  once  the  do- 
main of  the  relation  between  states  is  recognized  officially  as 
constituting  a  sphere  of  law  and  where  once  the  task  of  re- 
establishing the  disturbed  equilibrium  between  the  states  is 
taken  out  of  the  hands  of  the  parties  immediately  concerned 
and  made  the  business  of  an  independent  mechanism  acting 
as  the  instrument  of  the  law,  there  and  then,  we  repeat,  war 


296  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

is  put  out  of  court  and  we  have  to  do  with  merely  judicial 
settlements. 

(b)  The  objection,  secondly,  takes  the  form  of  a  protest 
against  any  recognition  whatever  of  force  as  an  instrument 
in  the  hands  of  law.  Here  we  have  to  do  with  extreme  paci- 
ficists, like,  e.  g.,  W.  J.  Bryan,  who,  it  may  be  remembered, 
has  criticized  in  public  speech  the  proposal  of  eminent  states- 
men like  William  Taft  and  Theodore  Roosevelt  to  limit  arm- 
aments as  to  size  but  not  to  dispense  with  their  use  altogether. 

But  why,  we  ask  in  return,  should  one  object  to  force  per 
sef  In  this  world  nothing  is  bad  unless  it  is  put  to  a  bad  use. 
Force  is  not  bad,  but  the  use  of  it  may  be  bad  according  as 
the  aim  of  the  use  is  bad.  Force  is  an  actual  factor  in  Na- 
ture; now  a  factor  as  such  is  morally  indifferent,  and  it  ac- 
quires moral  significance  only  as  it  relates  itself  to  a  controll- 
ing agent;  then,  it  becomes  bad  if  it  negates  the  said  control 
and  becomes  unbridled.  Thus,  none  of  the  human  instincts 
is  bad  as  such;  they  become  bad,  as,  e.  g.,  the  sexual  instinct, 
when  indulged  in  to  an  excess,  that  is  to  say,  when  they  get 
the  better  of  the  human  agent  and  run  out  of  hand,  but  when 
under  proper  restraint,  all  instincts  are  legitimate.  This 
truth,  we  know,  is  a  platitude,  but  it  is  a  truth  apt  to  be  for- 
gotten at  times.  So,  Physical  force,  if  under  the  control  of 
reason,  is  a  good  and  useful  instrument;  it  becomes  bad 
when  it  reverses  the  order  and  dictates  to  reason,  when  it 
makes  right  instead  of  obeying  it,  when,  in  short,  it  becomes 
the  master  where  it  normally  is  the  servant. 

Let  us  extend  the  scope  of  the  argument.  Man,  in  his  re- 
lation to  any  natural  element,  aims  not  to  destroy,  but  to  take 
in  hand.  The  wind  may  blow  too  hard  for  man  to  withstand, 
it  may  tear  down  the  houses  he  has  built  and  the  ships  on 
the  sea ;  now,  the  reasonable  attitude  to  take  is  not  to  discard 
wind  as  an  instrument  for  the  ends  of  man  and  treat  it  as 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  297 

something  to  be  shunned  and  avoided,  but  on  the  contrary  to 
labor  to  bring  it  more  and  more  within  effective  control. 
Primitive  man,  to  be  sure,  took  the  opposite  attitude  and  re- 
garded the  forces  of  Nature  as  objects  of  fear  and  hatred, 
but  primitive  man  has  the  excuse  of  ignorance,  and  the  mod- 
ern pacificist  has  not.  Our  dictum  that  "force  (armed  or 
not)  is  an  instrument,"  enters  a  protest  as  such  against  the 
doctrine  of  both  the  extreme  militarist  and  the  extreme  paci- 
ficist. As  against  the  former  it  insists  that  force  is  a  tool, 
something  to  serve  and  not  to  be  served;  thus,  as  against 
Nietzche,  it  insists  that  force  is  not  a  god  to  be  worshipped, 
but  rather  a  wild  beast  to  be  subdued  and  a  weapon  to  be 
wielded.  And,  as  against  the  extreme  pacificists,  the  dictum 
insists  that  force  is  a  legitimate  tool,  that  it  may  be  used, 
that  force  should  not  be  scouted,  but  be  made  a  servant  to  the 
ideal  of  the  spirit.  In  short,  two  alternatives  are  placed  be- 
fore the  individual  agent,  either  let  the  force  rule  over  you  or 
rule  over  the  force.  Of  these,  the  first  is  undesirable  and 
mischievous  in  results,  if  selected,  whereas  the  second  is 
desirable  and  good,  and  in  our  world  of  federated  states, 
where  force  will  be  maintained  as  the  tool  of  the  law,  we  will 
certainly  cast  the  lot  for  the  latter  alternative. 

5.  Before  we  put  an  end  to  this  general  section,  it  will  be 
well  to  set  our  plan  into  greater  relief  by  placing  it  in  con- 
trast with  other  schemes  calculated  to  control  or  end  war, 
and  to  exhibit  the  difference  between  the  elements  of  the 
situation  now  and  of  that  to  be  realized  through  the  plan  as 
herein  proposed. 

(a)  As  things  are  now,  the  issues  lying  before  a  state  are 
limited  to  war  and  peace,  and  very  often  with  justice  found 
on  the  side  of  war.  A  given  country  which  perceives  right 
violated  protests  in  vain  unless  it  is  ready  and  able  to  fight 
the  offending  party  with  prospects  of  victory.     For  that 


298  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

country,  war,  with  all  its  horrors,  will  be  preferable  to  peace. 
But  when  the  relation  between  the  states  has  been  incor- 
porated into  the  sphere  of  law  to  be  administered  by  a  Fed- 
eral government,  the  state  which  suffers  will  not  itself  be 
called  upon  to  fight,  and  justice  will  be  executed  by  an  im- 
partial tribunal  through  infliction  of  the  necessary  punish- 
ment upon  the  offender.  Whereas  in  the  first  case  the  ap- 
plication of  force  is  an  interested  act,  in  that  it  is  made  by 
the  injured  party  for  purposes  of  self-defense  or  self-re- 
venge, and  consequently  entails  the  arousal  of  all  the  pas- 
sions of  hatred  and  fury  such  as  are  raging  now  on  the  soil 
of  the  belligerent  countries  in  Europe.  In  the  latter  case  the 
use  of  force  will  be  a  disinterested  act,  accompanied  by  the 
excitement  of  no  animosity  or  passions.  In  short,  we  con- 
vert the  issue  of  war  and  peace  into  one  of  justice  and  injus- 
tice, and,  accepting  the  presupposition  that  justice  is  to  be 
preferred,  aim  to  create  a  situation  where  justice  will  not 
mean  war  as  well. 

(b)  We  may  also  contrast  our  plan  with  the  plan  which 
relies  chiefly  on  the  employment  of  arbitration  as  a  remedy 
against  war.  The  latter,  in  some  cases,  presupposes  a  situa- 
tion where  the  states  are  absolute  units,  with  no  legal  organ- 
ization to  control  the  sphere  of  their  relations,  especially  as 
concerns  warfare  between  them.  The  states  merely  agree 
to  refer  their  quarrel  to  a  third  and  neutral  party  for  adju- 
dication, but,  if  they  are  not  so  disposed,  they  may  not  agree. 
Even  in  the  case  of  compulsory  arbitration,  the  affair  is  pri- 
marily a  matter  between  the  states  themselves,  a  quarrel  or  a 
reconciliation,  and  it  consists  merely  in  an  attempt  to  settle 
the  difference  otherwise  than  through  war.  Hague  tribunals 
and  other  courts  of  arbitration  are  useful  so  far  as  they  go, 
but  they  do  not  go  very  far,  even  in  point  of  principle,  be- 
cause they  deal  with  the  war  situation  as  if  it  is  an  affair  of 


PEACE   WITH    JUSTICE  299 

the  individual  states  as  such,  in  effect  viewing  the  states  in 
too  pluralistic  a  fashion,  without  recognizing  the  organic 
unity,  the  real  whole,  transcending  the  states  as  such,  but 
constituted  by  their  mutual  inter-relationship. 

On  the  other  hand,  according  to  the  plan  of  the  establish- 
ment of  a  general  federation,  the  adjudication  of  the  differ- 
ences between  states  is  not,  strictly  speaking,  an  act  of  ar- 
bitration, but  rather  a  case  of  the  administration  of  law;  it 
is  a  matter  not  of  satisfying  the  interests  of  the  state  as 
such,  but  of  maintaining  the  fabric  of  justice.  Just  as  in  an 
organism  matters  concerning  the  adjustment  of  the  func- 
tions of  cells  with  each  other  relate  to  the  interest,  not  of  the 
cells  as  such,  but  of  the  tissues  which  they  form  or  the  gen- 
eral organism  constituted  thereby,  so  within  the  federation 
the  situation  will  lie  on  a  plane  above  that  of  the  parties  di- 
rectly concerned,  and  its  settlement  will  be  controlled  by  the 
action  of  a  self-regulating  mechanism  restoring  itself  to  a 
state  of  normal  functioning. 

With  these  remarks  we  conclude  our  reply  to  the  question 
propounded  in  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  with  reference 
to  the  theoretical  problem  as  to  the  nature  of  the  desirable 
ideal  for  the  relation  of  the  peoples  and  as  to  the  places  of 
war  in  the  plan  of  that  ideal.  We  have  said  that  co-opera- 
tion on  the  basis  of  a  federation  of  states  established  on  the 
lines  of  nationality,  possessing  legislative,  judicial  and  execu- 
tive authority  over  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  relation  of 
state  to  state,  a  co-operation  allowing  rational  and  useful 
competition,  but  excluding  the  waging  of  warfare,  is  the  de- 
sirable and  practicable  ideal.  The  Federal  government  will 
consider  any  infringement  of  the  rights  of  a  given  state  as  a 
violation  of  the  Federal  law,  and  treat  the  act  punitively  by 
the  employment  of  economic  pressure  or  armed  force,  and 


300  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

in  general  will  adjudicate  all  points  at  dispute  between  states 
through  rulings  of  a  federal  judicial  tribunal. 

Our  reply  to  the  first  question,  as  already  given,  is  at  once 
a  partial  reply  to  our  second  question  as  to  the  practical 
means  to  attain  the  ideal.  Our  reply  registers,  e.  g.,  one  way 
to  avoid  war  through  the  setting  up  of  interstate  legal  au- 
thority; it  discusses  whether  the  machinery  of  the  state  is 
useful  or  not  relatively  to  the  question  of  the  causation  of 
war,  and  whether  nationality  must  be  suppressed  in  the  end 
of  killing  the  germs  of  animosity  between  men.  Conse- 
quently it  will  take  much  less  space  to  expound  our  spe- 
cific reply  to  the  second  question.  But  before  we  actively 
engage  ourselves  with  the  task,  some  general  remarks  may 
prove  to  the  point. 

(I)  There  is  no  doubt  that  at  the  present  the  subject  of 
war  and  its  prevention,  and  the  establishment  of  peace,  is 
engaging  more  attention  than  ever,  and  there  is  no  doubt,  as 
well,  that  the  increase  in  the  amount  of  attention  is  due  to 
the  actual  fact  of  the  terrible  conflict  waged  by  so  many  of 
the  nations  of  the  world  against  each  other.  Now,  serious 
danger  always  arises  whenever  discussion  of  a  certain  topic 
takes  its  start  from  actual  experience  of  the  fact  discussed, 
and  for  the  following  reason :  An  object  cannot  be  seen  in 
its  true  proportion  if  looked  at  from  too  short  a  distance, 
so  that,  given  the  latter,  too  much  stress  is  apt  to  be  laid  on 
unimportant  features.  Let  us  see  how  this  principle  works 
in  its  effects  upon  the  discussion  now  carried  on  about  the 
topic  of  war. 

(a)  Any  one  who  has  followed  the  discussion  with  some 
care  will  have  been  struck  with  the  inordinate  degree  of  em- 
phasis laid  on  the  subject  of  the  horrors  of  war  and  of  the 
evils  of  which  it  is  the  cause.  The  chief  argument  directed 
against  war  is  based  on  the  fact  that  war  is  very  injurious  to 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  301 

humanity,  causes  great  pain,  much  material  loss,  and  a  large 
waste  of  life.  Now,  a  little  dose  of  psychological  insight 
would  pronounce  this  procedure  an  ineffective  method  of  bat- 
tling against  war.  The  most  effective  means  to  inhibit  a 
given  process  is  not  to  take  direct  measures  to  curb  that  pro- 
cess, but  to  initiate  another  process  in  a  direction  contrary  to 
that  of  the  first.  To  illustrate :  the  surest  way  to  stop  the 
flow  of  water  in  a  certain  direction  is  not  to  build  up  a  dam 
facing  against  the  direction  of  its  flow,  but  to  open  up  an- 
other channel  in  which  to  divert  its  flow.  Similarly,  the  most 
efficient  educational  propaganda  should  concern  itself  spe- 
cifically not  with  pointing  out  the  evils  of  war,  but  with  oc- 
cupying the  mind  with  the  advantages  of  co-operation  and 
the  good  of  enlightened  nationalism.  Because  we  human 
folk  are  now  engaged  in  the  process  of  war,  its  results  occupy 
the  focus  of  our  consciousness,  and  it  is  against  the  results 
that  we  are  aiming  our  criticism ;  but  naturally,  when  the  war 
is  over,  and  the  time  comes  when  we  will  not  be  experiencing 
the  results  immediately,  or  will  at  least  feel  them  with  less 
intensity,  the  former  arguments  which  actually  depended  for 
their  force  upon  the  felt  evils  of  the  war,  will  lose  their 
force  and  old  self-same  desires  will  spring  up  again,  virile 
and  strong  and  perhaps  overwhelming. 

In  general,  to  lay  stress  on  the  evil  results  of  a  certain  in- 
stinct or  practice,  is  not  the  best  means  to  put  an  end  to  the 
exercise  of  that  instinct  or  practice,  for  as  soon  as  the  actual, 
acute  experience  of  the  results  is  eliminated  and  the  field  is 
free  the  latent  desire  reasserts  itself  and  tends  to  shatter  at 
once  the  weak  walls  built  to  bar  the  progress  of  its  flow.  To 
apply  this  to  our  case,  consciousness  of  the  warring  instinct 
is  accompanied  by  consciousness  of  the  results  of  the  in- 
stinct only  at  the  moment  when  the  latter  is  actually  indulged 
in  and  given  free  rein,  but  not  before;  we  need,  however,  an 


302  WAR    OR    A    UNITED    WORLD 

agency  which  will  inhibit  the  instinct,  not  after,  but  before  it 
is  indulged  in.  Now,  it  is  only  by  the  opening  up  of  a  new 
path  that  the  old  can  be  closed  securely ;  the  new  channel  be- 
ing given,  the  current  of  force  is  switched  off  from  the  old 
into  the  new,  so  that  by  this  process  of  drainage,  the  first 
instinct  is  automatically  deprived  of  its  power  to  impel  and 
attract.  Put  in  general  terms,  the  positive  method  of  attack 
is  more  effective  than  the  negative  method,  and  this  truth 
must  be  impressed  upon  the  minds  of  the  many  well-mean- 
ing propagandists  who  content  themselves  with  harping  con- 
tinually on  the  amount  of  distress  and  loss  for  which  war  is 
responsible. 

(b)  Any  discussion  of  the  merits  of  a  situation  which 
(discussion)  is  suggested  by  the  actual  experiencing  of  the 
situation  itself  is  usually  accompanied  by  a  failure  to  per- 
ceive things  from  a  true  perspective,  not  only  in  the  sense 
that  the  negative  is  given  more  importance  than  the  positive, 
but  in  that  a  general  confusion  as  to  the  issues  involved  is 
sure  to  follow.  You  find  that  now  the  issue  is  expressed  by 
many  in  terms  of  the  two  alternatives,  war  or  peace,  or  again, 
violent  or  peaceful  solution  of  conflicts,  acceptance  of  the 
latter  alternative  being  urged  at  the  same  time.  And  the  con- 
vinced disciple,  when  faced  with  a  situation  demanding  a 
fight  for  the  sake  of  justice  or  the  use  of  force  in  the  ends 
of  law,  is  thrown  at  once  into  dire  perplexity  and  may  actu- 
ally cast  the  vote  for  peace  even  when  peace  involves  the 
sacrifice  of  justice.  Indeed,  have  not  we  had  already  occa- 
sion to  consider  the  protests  directed  against  any  use  of 
violent  measures  by  the  Federal  authority  for  the  purpose  of 
punishment  on  the  ground  that  the  said  use  of  violence  will 
disturb  the  sway  of  peace  ?  Such  protests,  we  have  said,  is- 
sue from  people  who  are  confused  in  their  own  minds  as  to 
the  true  issue.     The  real  alternatives  before  us  are  the  ren- 


PEACE   WITH    JUSTICE  303 

dering  of  justice  or  not,  and  not  the  prevalence  of  peace  or 
not.  The  question  is  not  whether  war  or  peace  exist  as  be- 
tween two  states,  but  whether  the  one  does  or  does  not  stand 
in  rightful  relation  toward  the  other,  and  the  other  to  the 
one;  the  primary  task  is  the  satisfaction  of  the  demands  of 
justice  and  the  reinstatement  of  injured  rights,  and  upon  this 
level  arises  the  question  as  to  whether  this  task  may  not  be 
accomplished  without  warfare  or  the  use  of  armed  force. 
To  call  oneself  a  pacificist  is  to  take  the  cue  from  the  mili- 
tarist and  move  on  his  own  level  of  thought,  though  in  an 
opposite  direction ;  more  correctly,  we  should  be  not  pacific- 
ists, advocates  of  peace,  as  such,  but  rather  advocates  of 
justice,  of  organization  and  of  the  maintenance  of  law. 

(II)  Let  us,  secondly,  realize  that  the  soil  on  which  the 
practical  patriot  and  humanitarian  are  to  work  lies  in  the 
cavity  of  the  recesses  of  the  soul,  so  that  to  bring  about  the 
application  of  the  desirable  ideal  one  has  essentially  to  take 
account  of  and  deal  with  desires,  deep-rooted  instincts,  in- 
hibitions, ideas,  philosophical  beliefs,  sentiments,  in  a  word, 
mental  processes.  If  there  is  to  be  a  change,  it  will  be  a 
change  of  the  heart  primarily,  of  dispositions,  and  of  the 
intellect,  of  accepted  views  and  convictions.  Consequently 
the  positive  work  of  meeting  the  situation  must  consist  in 
the  use  of  forces  tending  to  change  the  mental  point  of  view 
and  to  create  a  public  opinion  enlightened  in  the  way  desired. 
All  other  means  are  bound  to  be  merely  external  and  hence 
futile.  The  mechanism  of  the  court  of  arbitration,  of  inter- 
national parliaments,  the  structure  of  enlightened  legislation 
and  the  rest,  will  be  of  no  avail,  unless  the  soul  of  man  is  dis- 
posed to  make  use  of  the  machinery  and  to  obey  the  law.  In 
this  respect  Mr.  Roosevelt  is  justified  in  urging  against  all 
schemes  of  comprehensive  and  compulsory  arbitration  of 
disputes  between  states  that  if  public  opinion  is  not  prepared 


304  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

to  abide  by  the  agreements,  and  Mr.  Roosevelt  thinks  it  is 
not,  such  schemes  are  futile  and  worse  than  futile,  because 
the  conclusion  of  agreements,  by  which  the  parties  to  the 
agreement  are  temperamentally  unable  to  abide,  breeds  dis- 
honesty and  disregard  for  solemn  promises.  Undoubtedly, 
in  order  that  any  new  mechanism  of  conciliation  and  co- 
operation be  built  up  and  operated,  there  must  be  readiness 
and  ability  on  the  part  of  the  public  to  work  the  mechanism. 

2.  Now,  then,  the  above  are  the  maxims  which  should 
guide  all  efforts  at  a  practical  solution  of  the  difficulty, 
namely,  (a)  emphasis  should  be  laid  on  positive  rather  than 
on  negative  measures;  (b)  the  issues  should  be  clearly  dis- 
tinguished and  their  relative  importance  ascertained,  and  (c) 
the  essentially  psychological  nature  of  the  problem  should 
be  recognized.  Let  us  meanwhile  acknowledge  that  work  in 
the  negative  direction,  though  secondary  to  and  presupposing 
work  in  the  positive  direction,  is  nevertheless  important  and 
useful.  Hence  we  will  advocate  employment  of  both  posi- 
tive and  negative  measures  in  the  end  of  realizing  the  federa- 
tion as  suggested. 

Now,  on  the  one  hand,  the  positive  contribution  to  the  so- 
lution of  the  problem  will  consist  in  the  building  up  of  all  the 
psychic  habits  of  action,  of  sentiment  and  of  thought  which 
are  presupposed  in  the  erection  and  maintenance  of  the  struc- 
ture of  the  Federal  union;  on  the  other  hand,  the  negative 
contribution  will  consist  in  the  elimination  of  all  factors 
working  against  the  realization  of  this  end,  and,  since  war  is 
the  strongest  factor  opposing  the  co-operative  spirit  and  the 
practice  of  federation,  the  said  negative  contribution  to  the 
solution  will  consist  in  the  employment  of  measures  to 
eliminate  war  itself,  if  possible.  We  will  begin  with  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  negative. 

(1)   In  hitting  upon  measures  to  stop  war,  we  should  not 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  305 

let  ourselves  be  hurried;  change  is  slow  and  a  natural  pro- 
cess takes  its  own  time.  Short  of  the  best,  we  should  be  con- 
tent with  the  better,  with  the  good,  even  with  the  less  worse, 
welcoming  eagerly  any  movement  ahead  that  we  note,  using 
even  half  measures  where  full  measures  are  inapplicable. 
And  secondly,  in  a  situation  concerning  steps  to  be  taken  by 
all  nations  together,  it  will  be  unwise  to  wait  until  the  last 
laggard  has,  on  his  own  accord,  expressed  his  willingness  to 
follow  suit.  Humanity  stands  in  need  of  leaders  who  will 
forge  ahead  of  the  rank  and  file,  who  will  set  examples  and 
push  the  scheme  through  with  vigor,  who  will  urge  the  others 
by  all  forces  of  persuasion  to  prosecute  the  forward  train, 
and  in  extreme  circumstances  even  compel  them  to  enter  the 
line.  Let  us  now  examine,  in  their  proper  order,  the  steps  to 
be  taken,  beginning  with  those  easiest  of  application  and  the 
least  radical,  and  following  with  those  that  are  most  revo- 
lutionary. 

(a)  Mr.  W.  J.  Bryan  has  proposed  that,  in  every  case,  a 
year  be  set  aside  for  discussion,  whenever  any  acute  differ- 
ence arises  between  two  states,  before  a  final  decision  is 
taken.  The  proposal  takes  account  of  the  fact  that  hurry 
engenders  excitement  and  serves  to  inflame  the  violent  pas- 
sions, whereas  reason  operates  with  deliberation  and  takes 
its  own  time ;  thus,  it  is  clear  that  Austria,  which  had  made 
up  its  mind  to  fight  Serbia,  purposely  assigned  a  very  short 
time  limit  for  the  handing  in  by  the  latter  of  a  reply  to  her 
ultimatum,  and  later  refused  to  extend  the  said  limit,  be- 
cause she  anticipated  that  her  plan  would  probably  be 
thwarted  in  case  this  were  done. 

Nevertheless,  to  agree  in  general  to  set  aside  any  definite 
amount  of  time — say  a  year — during  which  decision  will  be 
withheld,  is  of  doubtful  value,  for  the  reason  that  some 
calls  brook  no  delay  and  some  situations  are  urgent  in  na- 


306  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

ture,  and  require  immediate  attention.  It  has  already  been 
pointed  out  by  others  that  if  a  state  takes  occupation  by 
force  of,  say,  a  foreign  island,  the  year's  interval  of  breath- 
ing-spell will  afford  it  ample  time  to  fortify  the  position  se- 
curely so  that  the  party  injured,  will,  at  the  expiration  of  the 
interval,  find  that  its  hands  are  completely  tied.  But  al- 
though it  is  unwise  to  lay  down  set  rules  about  the  matter, 
the  general  principle  underlying  the  suggestion  should  be 
heeded  and  deliberation  and  decision  should  never  be  rushed. 

(b)  A  second  suggestion  is  to  the  effect  that  committees 
of  reconciliation  be  appointed  which  will  make  available 
their  good  offices  for  two  or  more  states  which  find  them- 
selves at  odds  with  each  other.  It  is  oftentimes  true  that 
the  states  directly  involved  in  a  dispute  are  so  inflamed 
with  passion,  that,  for  them,  cool  reasoning  and  mutual 
comprehension  become  impossible — and  then  the  labors  of  a 
neutral  committee  which  would  serve  as  a  go-between,  a 
mediator,  or  a  conciliator,  would  be  necessary  and  fruitful. 
Of  course,  this  step  goes  to  a  very  short  distance,  for  a 
state  which  is  determined  to  fight  will  contemptuously  toss 
aside  the  overtures  of  such  a  committee ;  yet  the  parties  are 
not  uncompromising  always,  and  in  many  cases  of  difference 
between  states  the  requisite  element  is  not  so  much  agree- 
ing mutually  on  legal  and  technical  points,  but  possessing  the 
proper  disposition  to  agree  and  taking  the  attitude  of  con- 
ciliation. It  is  in  such  situations  that  the  committee  as  pro- 
posed will  furnish  useful  service  tending  to  infuse  a  con- 
genial atmosphere  and  the  spirit  of  compromise  into  the  sur- 
roundings. 

(c)  It  is  further  suggested  that  complete  disarmament  be 
immediately  decided  upon  by  all  states.  This  proposal 
takes  account  of  the  fact  that  working  for  and  producing  in- 
struments for  a  given  end   kindles  the  impulse  to  make  use 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  307 

of  the  instrument  by  creating  a  situation  where  such  use 
will  be  necessary,  so  that,  similarly,  possession  by  a  state  of 
the  instruments  of  warfare  impels  the  state  to  go  to  war  in 
order  to  put  the  weapon  to  use.  And  then,  of  course,  it  is 
tacitly  presupposed  that  by  removing  the  instrument  we  re- 
move the  capacity,  as  well  as  weaken  the  desire,  to  realize 
the  end,  i.  e.,  war. 

But  surely  the  actual  facts  do  not  warrant  this  conclusion, 
(a)  To  take  up  the  latter  point — depriving  the  desire  of  its 
tool  does  not  necessarily  mean  killing  the  desire  itself  or 
rendering  it  completely  helpless.  It  is  the  tool  which  de- 
pends upon  the  desire — for  the  desire  creates  the  tool — and 
not  the  desire  upon  the  tool.  The  desire — provided  that  it  is 
strong — will  strive  to  invent  some  other  means,  of  whatever 
nature,  in  order  to  secure  its  own  fulfilment.  The  method 
of  disarmament  is  too  external  to  warrant  much  hope  in  the 
successful  issue  of  its  application. 

And  (b)  supposing,  when  once  complete  disarmament  has 
been  agreed  upon  and  effected,  that  a  state  in  some  way  or 
other  insults,  injures,  or  violates  the  honor  and  rights  of 
another  state,  and  it  is  necessary  that  punishment  be  in- 
flicted and  justice  be  rendered.  If  the  guilty  state  is  recal- 
citrant and  obstinate,  force  will  probably  be  necessary  to 
bring  it  to  reason,  and  so  the  question  arises,  how  will  that 
force  be  secured  ?  Indeed,  supposing  the  said  state  had  been 
engaged  in  the  secret  manufacture  of  arms  and  ammunition, 
will  not  the  other  states,  when  the  critical  moment  ar- 
rives, be  caught  unawares  and  forced  to  bend  the  knee  in 
helpless  acquiescence  to  the  arrogant  transgression  of  the 
agreement?  Optimism  is  good,  but  too  much  of  it  is  not 
justified,  and  we  must  always  provide  for  the  worst;  we 
cannot  rely  too  confidently  upon  the  trustworthiness  of 
every  state,  and  there  is  always  the  possibility  of  a  violation 


308  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

of  a  treaty  of  disarmament.  When  the  United  States  of 
the  World  is  an  accomplished  fact,  all  individual  states  will 
be  disarmed,  but  there  will  exist  instead  an  efficient  body  of 
police — consisting  of  an  army  and  a  navy — under  the  au- 
thority of  the  federal  government.  And  until  the  U.  S.  W. 
is  realized  it  is  necessary  to  allow  states  to  be  armed  to  a 
certain  extent.  However,  there  is  no  justification  for  the 
enormous  degree  in  which  states  have  armed  themselves  at 
the  present  time,  and  it  is  imperative  in  the  ends  of  peace, 
that  the  size  of  armaments  be  limited  by  common  agreement, 
the  extent  to  which  each  state  is  to  be  armed  being  deter- 
mined in  proportion  to  the  State's  size  in  number  of  in- 
habitants and  in  territory.  Under  this  provision,  if  a  given 
state  happens  to  violate  the  rule,  the  rest  of  the  states  will 
be  in  a  position,  by  uniting  their  arms  together,  to  present  a 
mailed  fist  strong  enough  to  intimidate,  or,  if  necessary,  to 
compel  the  culprit  to  submission.  But  it  must  be  under- 
stood that  armaments  thus  limited  in  size,  will  be  allowed  to 
continue  in  being,  for  a  long  time  at  least,  as  instruments 
of  punishment  and  reparation,  until  the  better  days  have 
dawned. 

(d)  After  all  is  said  and  done,  arbitration  remains  as  the 
most  efficient  means  to  apply  in  the  circumstances  of  our 
age.  It  is  not  an  ideal  means,  by  far,  as  we  shall  soon  see ; 
however,  it  is,  most  probably,  the  best  available.  But  the 
machinery  of  arbitration  must  be  made  more  perfect  than 
the  one  already  in  force,  if  it  is  to  be  effective ;  the  existing 
machinery  has  not  been  able  to  stop  the  Great  War  and  we 
are  looking  for  something  which  will  not  break  down  in  the 
face  of  great  crisis.  The  Hague  Court  of  Arbitration  has 
of  course  been  very  useful,  and  Mr.  Carnegie,  in  his  essay 
on  "The  League  of  Peace,"  is  authority  for  the  statement, 
if  we  correctly  remember,  that  more  than  a  hundred  wars 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  309 

have  been  killed  in  the  womb,  through  the  ministrations  of 
the  court;  nevertheless,  the  deplorable  fact  remains  that  a 
number  of  wars  have  broken  out  despite  the  court.  Now, 
what  are  the  requisite  improvements?  We  should  first  en- 
large international  law  in  point  of  scope,  make  it  clearer, 
fuller,  more  explicit.  The  law  as  such  is  of  no  avail  as  a 
preventive  of  war,  but  in  the  wake  of  more  powerful  cur- 
rents it  proves  to  be  quite  serviceable.  Hence,  let  there  be 
established  a  permanent  assembly  whose  function  it  will  be 
to  legislate  as  necessary,  and  to  keep  the  body  of  the  law  up 
to  date.  Secondly,  and  much  more  important,  there  must 
be  established  a  permanent  court  of  arbitration.  Two  meas- 
ures here  are  of  conspicuous  significance;  (a)  the  resort  to 
arbitration  must  be  compulsory,  and  (b)  the  judgment  of 
the  court  must  be  binding  upon  all  states.  And  here  is  the 
crux;  is  humanity  ready  to  put  these  measures  into  force? 
To  take  up  the  first — all  states  should  sign  treaties  by 
which  to  pledge  themselves  to  refer  to  arbitration  any  jus- 
tifiable point  of  dispute  arising  between  them,  and  which 
cannot  be  settled  by  the  usual  diplomatic  channels  of  nego- 
tiation. And,  furthermore,  the  states  in  general  should  agree 
to  compel  any  state  to  fulfil  the  provisions  of  the  said  treaty 
if  the  state  fails  to  do  so  of  its  own  accord.  Now.  the  con- 
clusion of  such  treaties  between  all  states  will  be  a  very 
difficult  matter,  as  there  are  bound  to  be  a  few  states  holding 
back,  and  in  this  connection  the  suggestion  which  we  made 
some  paragraphs  above  is  in  point.  We  need  leaders  among 
the  states  who  will  be  in  the  van  and  urge  and  compel  the 
rest  to  follow.  Mr.  Roosevelt  has  proposed  that  the  great 
powers  of  the  world  conclude  agreements  among  themselves 
to  refer  to  arbitration  all  justifiable  matters  of  dispute  aris- 
ing between  them,  and  further  to  combine  in  the  formation 
of  a  league  whose  function  it  will  be  to  compel  the  other 


310  WAR    OR    A    UNITED    WORLD 

small  states  to  make  use  of  arbitration — if  not  all  the  great 
powers,  at  least,  such  a  number  of  them  as  will  bring  to- 
gether sufficient  force  to  insure  compliance  by  the  rest  with 
the  scheme  and  workings  of  arbitration.  The  value  of  the 
suggestion  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  provides  for  better  progress 
than  if  ail  states  had  to  agree  together  before  arbitration 
began  to  be  generally  effective.  Again,  it  will  be  difficult 
to  make  use  of  armed  force  composed  of  contingents  con- 
tributed by  every  single  state,  and  it  will  be  more  convenient 
to  muster  the  forces  from  among  the  members  of  the 
league,  as  mentioned. 

Our  second  point  refers  to  compulsory  acceptance  of  the 
verdicts  of  the  arbitral  court.  Here,  too,  given  a  state 
which  insists  upon  formal  acceptance  of  its  own  side  of  the 
matter  rather  than  of  the  version  of  the  court,  the  rest  of 
the  states,  or  a  league  of  the  powers,  should  see  to  it  that 
the  verdict  of  the  court  is  carried  out.  It  must  be  remarked 
that  though  the  suppression  of  war  will  be  the  result,  such 
will  not  be  the  only  and  direct  purpose  of  the  general  work- 
ing of  the  court.  The  prime  end  of  the  machinery  of  ar- 
bitration, as  just  set  forth,  will  be  to  award  justice,  and  the 
avowed  end  of  the  executive  league  will  be  to  enforce  jus- 
tice; and  only  when  a  state  revolts  against  the  decision  of 
the  court,  or  when,  in  contempt  of  court,  it  directs  violent 
measures  against  another  state,  will  resort  be  made  to  either 
economic  pressure   or  armed  force. 

But  at  this  juncture  we  are  confronted  with  a  very  acute 
problem.  Shall  or  shall  not  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court 
extend  over  all  and  any  points  of  difference  arising  between 
two  or  more  states, — or,  to  put  it  otherwise,  will  a  state  be 
called  upon  to  arbitrate  any  matter  which  concerns  it  in  its 
relation  to  the  other  states?  Let  us  at  once  face  the  fact 
that  unless  no  exception  is  made  in  the  respect  of  the  nature 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  311 

of  the  matters  over  which  the  court  will  possess  authority 
to  arbitrate,  we  may  as  well  despair  of  witnessing  the  ending 
of  war ;  for  any  matter  that  we  may  exclude  will  very  prob- 
ably one  day  furnish  the  spark  which  will  kindle  the  con- 
flagration of  war.  Either  we  agree  that  arbitration  should 
apply  to  all  points  of  dispute  between  states,  without  excep- 
tion, or  otherwise  we  acquiesce  in  the  possible  and  probable 
recurrence  of  war.  We  say  "probable"  intentionally,  for 
if,  say,  questions  of  honor  are  to  form  the  exception,  a  state 
may  very  easily  put  forth  the  claim  of  insult  to  its  honor  as 
a  pretext  to  embark  upon  war  against  another  state.  Let  us 
forthwith  examine  the  questions  which,  it  is  declared  by 
many,  should  be  deemed  non-arbitrable. 

These  may  be  summed  up  as  (a)  private  and  personal 
affairs  of  the  state  on  the  one  hand,  and  (b)  matters  of 
honor,  on  the  other.  Self-defence  is  often  urged  by  states 
as  the  purpose  for  which  they  engage  in  war,  but  self-de- 
fence will  not  furnish  a  possible  pretext  for  war,  when  ar- 
bitration has  been  established  as  compulsory,  for  surely  the 
court  will  be  competent  to  pronounce  judgment  adversely  to 
the  state  which  conceives  aggressive  designs  against  its 
neighbors  and  engineers  wars  to  secure  occupation  of  for- 
eign territory,  (a)  With  respect  to  purely  personal  affairs 
of  the  state,  Mr.  Roosevelt  has  mentioned  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine and  the  control  by  the  government  of  the  U.  S.  A.  of 
the  size  and  quality  of  immigration  into  this  country.  Mr. 
Roosevelt  insists  that  these  questions  and  possibly  others 
relate  to  inalienable  rights  of  the  states  concerned  and  con- 
sequently are  not  susceptible  of  arbitration.  Now,  in  view 
of  this  allegation,  some  explanation  is  necessary.  It  must 
be  kept  in  mind  that  the  court  of  arbitration  will  possess  no 
authority  to  interfere  with  the  internal  affairs  of  the  state. 
It  must  be  laid  down  that  a  country  has  a  general  right  to 


312  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

be  master  in  its  own  house,  and  that  this  right  will  not  be 
questioned,  will  not  be  even  discussed  by  the  court,  for,  let 
us  note,  the  court  of  arbitration  is  to  be  not  a  destructive, 
but  a  conservative  force,  whose  purpose  will  be  the  assur- 
ance to  each  state  of  the  enjoyment  of  its  rights.  Conse- 
quently, no  state  will  have  reason  to  fear  any  loss  of  its 
individual  rights  through  the  comprehensive  operation  of 
the  arbitral  court.  .Thus,  granted  that  the  control  of  the 
influx  of  humanity  from  without  into  a  given  state  is  an  in- 
ternal affair  of  the  said  state  in  that  such  influx  affects  di- 
rectly the  internal  situation  of  the  country,  whenever  ac- 
knowledgment of  such  right  is  withheld,  and  attempt  is  made 
by  another  state  to  override  such  control,  the  court  will  sim- 
ply consider  and  determine  whether  violation  of  the  right  of 
a  state  to  manage  its  own  affairs  has  occurred  and  give  de- 
cision upon  the  merits  of  the  results  of  the  inquiry  into  this 
matter  solely,  without  passing  upon  the  question  as  to  the 
wisdom  of  the  act  of  the  state  itself  in  the  particular  control 
which  it  has  assumed  over  immigration.  In  other  words, 
regulating  the  control  of  immigration  into  a  given  country, 
by  the  country  itself,  provided  it  is  a  matter  of  internal  in- 
terest for  the  state,  is  a  right  which  will  constitute  a  start- 
ing point  for  the  court,  and  not  a  matter  to  be  discussed. 
The  provision  that  the  matter  is  of  private  concern  for  the 
state  is  necessary,  and  if  not  fulfilled — that  is  to  say,  if  the 
matter  concerns  the  other  states  in  equal  degree  or  rather 
concerns  the  relation  of  the  state  to  the  other  states,  we  do 
not  see  any  warrant  for  exempting  it  from  arbitration.  We 
insist  only  that  the  court  is  to  occupy  itself  with  the  affairs 
cf  the  relationship  between  states,  but  not  of  the  internal  ad- 
ministration of  the  state. 

It  is  but  natural  that  the  internal  affairs  of  a  state   will 
make  up  a  sanctum  sanctorum  into  which  none  other  but  the 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  313 

state  itself  may  set  foot,  and  the  provision  does  not  really 
imply  excepting  any  matters  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
court;  on  the  contrary,  it  entails  merely  specifying  the  man- 
ner in  which  such  matters  will  be  dealt  with.  To  summar- 
ize, the  provision  will  be  that  whenever  disputes  arise  out  of 
refusal  by  one  state  to  conform  with  the  regulations  of  an- 
other state  with  respect  to  its  own  internal  affairs,  the  court 
of  arbitration  will  give  verdict  only  as  to  whether  such  re- 
fusal has  happened — considering  the  said  refusal,  whenever 
occurring,  as  a  violation  of  right — and  will  in  no  wise  con- 
sider whether  the  nature  of  the  regulation  by  the  state  of  its 
affairs  is  proper  or  not,  or  take  action  to  impugn  the  validity 
of  the  regulation. 

(b)  We  now  take  up  the  question  of  honor.  Can  a  state, 
it  is  urged,  conserve  its  dignity  without  striking  back  when 
its  person  is  insulted  and  its  honor  besmirched?  Does  not 
the  individual  take  the  law  into  his  own  hands  when  the 
honor  of  his  wife  or  sister  is  violated?  How  then  can  we 
expect  the  injured  state  to  bring  the  matter  into  the  notice 
of  the  arbitral  court,  and  leave  it  there,  content  with  the  de- 
cision of  a  third  party  ? 

Well,  opinion  may  vary,  but  for  our  part  we  do  not  see 
why  the  state  should  not  satisfy  itself  with  referring  the 
matter  to  arbitration.  President  Wilson  has  finely  said  that 
there  is  something  like  being  too  proud  to  fight,  and  an  in- 
dividual, fully  conscious  of  his  dignity,  may  similarly  dis- 
dain to  wreak  revenge  through  the  employment  of  violence 
upon  the  wretch  who  has  insulted  him  ever  so  vilely  and 
brutally.  A  fine  nature  never  stoops  down  to  the  same 
level  from  one  which  its  unworthy  foe  has  levelled  his  in- 
famous shafts — never  uses  the  same  weapons,  never  pays 
the  brute  with  the  same  coin.  And  so  in  regard  to  the 
sphere  of  states ;  we  do  not  see  why  the  interests  of  the  dig- 


314  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

nity  of  the  insulted  state  should  demand  a  direct  violent  at- 
tack upon  the  offender  and  why  the  state  should  not — con- 
tent to  let  the  processes  of  the  arbitral  court  take  their  nor- 
mal course — disdain  to  take  notice  of  the  wicked  offender. 
To  the  sneer  that  the  state  which  is  too  proud  to  fight  will 
make  easy  food  for  its  greedy  enemy,  we  hasten  to  reply 
that  we  throughout  presuppose  this  to  be  a  matter  solely  of 
honor,  and  not  of  self-defense  against  foreign  greed  and 
aggression.  But  in  case  of  self-defense,  as  well,  we  have 
seen  that  the  league  of  the  states  will  seize  upon  the  guilty 
party  and  prevent  forcibly  the  execution  of  its  sinister 
designs. 

And  yet,  even  if  insult  to  honor  and  interference  with  the 
internal  administration  of  a  state  cease  to  constitute  breed- 
ing places  for  the  germs  of  war,  there  remains  a  third  issue 
which  seems  to  block  unavoidably  the  path  of  completely 
comprehensive  arbitration.  We  mean  the  following:  (c) 
As  conditions  are  nowadays,  a  number  of  nationalities  are 
subject  to  the  rule  of  other  nationalities — an  abnormal  sit- 
uation indeed,  due  to  our  sins  of  the  past — and  we  may  ex- 
pect that  some  day  the  subject  nations  will  make  insistent 
demands  in  order  to  secure  their  lost  independence.  Sup- 
posing that  the  ruling  states  refuse  to  accede  to  their  de- 
mands, is  there  any  way  to  prevent  the  outbreak  of  war 
and  bloodshed?  The  court  of  arbitration  cannot  but  re- 
spect the  law,  and  a  state  which  possesses  de  facto  control 
over  the  fortunes  and  affairs  of  a  given  nation  has  legal 
right  to  continue  in  the  same  possession.  Legally,  the  court 
will  be  powerless  to  give  judgment  to  the  effect  that  the 
subject  nation  be  granted  the  liberty,  to  which  it  possesses  a 
moral  right,  by  the  ruling  state,  for  the  court  cannot  create 
legal  rights  or  change  their  status;  it  only  takes  account  of 
a  situation,  but  is  without  means  for  altering  the  status  quo. 


WOODROW    WILSON 

PKKSIDENT    Ol'   THE   U.    S. 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  315 

And  yet  the  subject  nationality  possesses  from  nature  the 
inalienable  right  to  freedom  and  it  will  be  inhuman  to  pre- 
vent it  from  using  all  the  forces  at  its  command  in  the  end 
of  taking  effective  possession  of  that  right.  Thus,  the  court 
of  arbitration  can  have  authority  neither  to  demand  of  a 
nation  righting  for  its  freedom  that  it  desist,  and  that  it  re- 
spect the  master  who  has  wooed  her  by  force,  nor  to  compel 
the  latter  to  give  up  the  reins  and  grant  the  subject  nation 
her  political  independence.  So,  unless  the  ruling  state,  of 
its  own  accord,  grants  the  desired  freedom  to  the  subject 
people,  war,  more  specifically,  a  war  of  liberation,  seems  the 
only  solution.  Such  war  is  unavoidable  because,  as  mat- 
ters stand,  Turkey  rules  over  a  large  section  of  discontented 
Greeks  and  Armenians,  Russia  reigns  over  the  Finns,  Brit- 
ain over  Hindoos,  Germany  over  Poles  and  the  inhabitants 
of  Alsace-Lorraine — to  mention  only  a  few  instances;  and 
as  the  governing  empires  seem  unwilling  to  forego  control 
over  their  own  wards,  we  may  expect  to  see  the  disputes 
which  will  inevitably  arise  when  the  peoples  in  subjection 
awake  to  self-consciousness  and  become  endowed  with  the 
adequate  moral  and  physical  force,  settled  on  the  soil  of  the 
battlefield.  In  short,  we  may  as  well  admit  that  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes  this  war  is  not  the  last  war,  for  of  the 
two  sides,  although  the  side  defeated  may  be  made  to  forego 
its  possessions,  the  victors,  on  the  other  hand,  will  be  apt 
to  tighten  their  grasp  on  their  own;  and  let  us  keep  in  mind 
that  the  way  of  change  and  progress  is  rough,  and  that  the 
states  are  bound  to  trip,  and  perhaps  fall,  as  they  move  for- 
ward. Nevertheless,  this  situation  will  not  continue  in- 
definitely, and  when  once  readjustment  has  been  effected, 
even  through  war,  and  the  nations  have  achieved  their  lib- 
erties respectively,  the  dangers  of  war  issuing  from  this 
quarter    will  cease  to  exist. 


316  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

We  have  agreed  that  arbitration  is  the  most  efficient  ex- 
pedient for  the  prevention  of  war,  and  yet,  if  we  but  look, 
how  many  difficulties  do  we  not  discover  besetting  its  path  ? 
For  one  thing,  have  we  the  right  to  expect  that  all  the  states 
will  agree  to  sign  treaties  of  arbitration  as  suggested  ?  Can 
we  hope  that,  e.  g.,  such  a  state  as  Germany  will  be  of  our 
mind,  given  that  but  a  few  years  ago  the  Imperial  Chan- 
cellor, Herr  von  Bethmann-Hollweg,  in  a  speech  in  the 
Reichstag,  declared  in  so  many  words  that  efforts  to  insure 
the  complete  prevalence  of  peace  are  bound  to  be  futile,  and 
that  war  is  a  process  inseparable  from  the  life  of  a  nation? 
And  then,  even  if  it  be  admitted  in  theory  and  principle  that 
a  state  may  resort  to  a  court  for  the  arbitration  of  a  question 
of  honor,  without  lowering  its  dignity  in  the  least,  shall  we 
find  the  mass  of  the  nations,  in  their  present  stage  of  de- 
velopment, in  a  mood  to  accept  the  judgment  of  a  dispas- 
sionate intellect,  that  is  to  say,  to  feel  as  well  as  think 
rightly,  and  thus  to  agree  to  place  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  court  of  arbitration  all  disputes  arising  between  them? 
This  reflection  gives  us  occasion  to  repeat  that  the  negative 
remedy  depends  on,  and  presupposes,  the  positive  remedy, 
and  that  the  external  draws  power  to  live  from  the  internal ; 
that  unless  the  peoples  are  endowed  with  the  requisite  dis- 
position, no  plan,  no  measure,  no  mechanism,  however  per- 
fect it  may  be  as  such,  will  succeed.  Take  the  Monroe 
Doctrine;  now,  it  constitutes  a  distinct  issue,  but  supposing 
the  nations  co-operate  to  form  a  federation  and  agree  to 
drop  all  designs  of  aggression  altogether,  each  concentrating 
its  efforts  to  the  most  thorough  cultivation  of  its  resources 
in  unison  with  the  rest,  what  need  will  there  be  for  the  said 
doctrine  when  there  will  be  no  fear  that  America  may  be 
made  the  object  of  military  invasion  or  of  exploitation  by 
foreign  governments?     Under  the  new  conditions  such  acts 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  317 

and  processes  will  automatically  lose  their  significance,  and 
is  fact  such  terms  as  "occupation  of  territory"  or  "foreign 
political  exploitations"  will  become  meaningless.  It  must 
be  noted  that,  given  difficulties  which  appear  insurmountable, 
and  given  problems  for  which  the  only  solution  seems  war, 
or  conditions  in  which  justice  seems  to  demand  war,  the  es- 
tablishment of  federation  will  operate  to  remedy  the  ills  not 
directly,  but  indirectly,  by  preventing  the  recurrence  of  those 
situations  in  which  the  said  problems  normally  arise,  by  re- 
moving the  ground  from  under  the  feet  of  the  difficulties,  so 
to  speak. 

(2)  We  return,  therefore,  lastly,  to  the  most  significant 
feature  of  this  aspect  of  our  discussion,  namely,  the  ques- 
tion ©f  the  positive  development  of  a  spirit  of  co-operation 
and  a  sense  of  solidarity  among  the  peoples,  with  the  ulti- 
mate end  of  establishing  the  fabric  of  a  United  States  of 
the  World.  We  have  said  above  that  the  soil  upon  which 
work  is  to  be  performed  is  physical  rather  than  material. 
As  we  take  our  stand  upon  this  point  of  view,  we  find  our- 
selves baffled  in  our  efforts,  for,  comparatively  easy  as  it  is 
to  operate  upon  and  fashion,  the  external,  it  is  especially 
difficult  to  influence  the  internal.  The  depths  of  the  soul  are 
not  directly  accessible  to  external  stimulus,  and  to  a  large 
extent  we  will  have  to  trust  Nature  to  take  its  own  course. 

Now,  the  condition  we  desire  to  have  realized  among  the 
peoples  consists  of  the  right  sort  of  mental  attitude,  the 
good  will,  the  good  feeling,  the  sensible  opinion  about  the 
matter ;  and  the  bringing  of  this  about  will  be  the  task  of  a 
world-wide  movement  of  education  in  all  branchings  and 
situations  of  life,  and  by  all  possible  means. 

(a)  The  educational  movement  will  firstly  instill  the  right 
and  proper  convictions  in  the  mind  of  the  people.  A  Man's 
general  point  of  view — his  weltanschaaung — usually  deter- 


318  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORIyD 

mines  the  nature  of  his  action  and  it  is  our  duty  to  approach 
his  soul  first  from  that  vantage-point.  People  therefore 
must  be  given  to  understand  what  we  have  urged  in  the 
opening  pages  of  this  chapter,  namely,  that  war  is  not  a 
necessity,  neither  is  it  a  normal  process  in  the  life  of  the 
people — that  when  it  arises  it  is  more  often  due  to  the  ex- 
cessive control  which  the  pugnacious  instinct  has  assumed 
over  the  individual  members  of  the  race  and  as  such  is  an 
abnormality,  a  symptom  of  atavism;  that,  as  Mr.  Norman 
Angell  has  undertaken  to  prove  repeatedly,  states,  so  inti- 
mately connected  with  each  other  as  they  are,  are  bound  to 
lose  in  point  of  their  economic  resources  through  the  wag- 
ing of  mutual  conflict,  and  that  the  victor  in  the  war  suf- 
fers as  well  as  the  party  defeated,  because  no  state  is  com- 
pletely self-sufficient  and  self-supporting;  that  a  country, 
even  if  through  victory  it  adds  to  its  territory  at  the  ex- 
pense of  that  of  the  neighboring  state,  gains  nothing  thereby 
— the  old  conception  of  war  as  plunder  being  rendered  old- 
fashioned  through  the  progress  of  modern  conditions,  so 
that  in  the  present  stage  of  civilization,  whichever  state 
may  govern  a  given  country,  the  property  remains  in  the 
hands  of  the  individual  private  holders;  that  when  a  diffi- 
culty arises,  the  way  to  settle  it  is  through  appeal  to  reason 
and  ultimately  to  law  rather  than  through  direct  appeal  to 
force;  that  when  nations  co-operate  in  economic  and  cul- 
tural tasks  the  benefits  are  mutual;  that  loyalty  to  one's 
own  country  does  not  demand  ill-will  for  the  countries  of 
others  respectively,  because  no  one  nation's  real  good  can 
be  secured  at  the  price  of  another  nation's  real  loss;  that 
beyond  the  good  of  each  nation  as  such  there  lies  another 
and  greater  good,  the  good  of  all  the  nations  together — of 
humanity — and  that  therefore  nations  should  organize  them- 
selves into  a  co-operative  union  whose  aim  will  be  to  pro- 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  319 

mote  that  common  good  and  to  suppress  the  currents  which 
naturally  oppose  it.  To  those  who  cannot  understand  the 
language  of  altruism  we  must  speak  the  language  of  inter- 
est and  make  clear  that  it  is  always  to  the  mature  interest  of 
the  state,  sometimes  in  the  short  and  always  in  the  long  run, 
to  enter  into  agreements  with  other  states,  to  work  with 
them  in  harmony,  not  to  put  obstacles  before  their  path  to 
prosperity,  but  to  find  its  own  good  in  that  of  all  the  others. 

(b)  And  by  thus  influencing  men's  opinions  we  hope  to 
reach  into  the  atmosphere  of  their  sentiments  and  disposi- 
tions and  mould  these  accordingly.  Our  educational  propa- 
ganda must  therefore  operate  on  the  soil  of  the  heart  and 
use  all  influences  in  order  to  create  a  nobler  spirit  of  pa- 
triotism among  the  nations,  not  chauvinistic,  but  broad  and 
rational,  and  to  inspire  and  intensify  the  devotion  to  those 
ends  which  embrace  the  common  good  of  all  peoples.  With 
respect  to  the  war-mania,  if  the  pugnacious  instinct  proves 
too  strong  to  be  uprooted,  and  indeed  too  useful  to  warrant 
such  uprootal,  let  us  find  other  channels  than  warfare  for 
its  flow.  Heroism  may  flourish  on  other  fields  than  those 
of  battle,  and  danger  may  confront  the  spirit  on  any  plane 
of  action,  wherever  endurance  is  required  and  self-sacri- 
fices demanded;  and  let  the  heart  of  man  be  so  influenced 
as  to  feel  that  the  performance  of  the  common  tasks  of  duty 
exhibits  as  much  heroism  as  any  sensational  feat  of  arms. 
The  fight  to  secure  control  over  the  forces  of  Nature  is  of 
enough  intensity  and  presents  enough  complexity  to  task 
the  physical  energies  of  man  and  his  ingenuity  to  their  limit 
and  to  serve  as  a  convenient  channel  in  which  the  strong 
current  of  man's  aggressive  instincts  may  flow. 

In  general,  let  us  use  measures  to  put  these  instincts  into 
complete  subjection  to  reason,  in  order  that  they  may  not 
run  away  with  the  individual  agent,  even  when  the  bugle 


320  WAR   OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

calls  of  the  jingoist  and  his  press  are  loudest  and  the  clash 
of  the  sword  in  the  scabbard  sounds  most  attractive  to  the 
ear.  Not  only  should  the  exercise  of  the  belligerent  in- 
stincts be  kept  in  restraint,  but  other  instincts  should  be 
aroused  and  strengthened  as  well,  namely,  the  sense  of  solid- 
arity and  the  instinct  of  altruism  as  between  nation  and  na- 
tion. Indifference  is  almost  as  bad  as  hatred,  and  the  people 
of  no  nation  should  be  indifferent  to  the  needs  of  humanity 
at  large  and  more  particularly  of  their  neighboring  coun- 
tries. To  this  end,  the  disposition  to  work  in  common  should 
be  sedulously  cultivated  and  a  national  heart  be  bred  which 
will  suffer  at  the  sufferings  of  the  others  as  well  as  of  its 
own,  and  the  sentiment  of  sympathy  be  given  an  interna- 
tional as  well  as  an  inter-individual  scope.  Now,  feelings 
and  dispositions  are  fed  primarily  from  the  storehouse  of 
example,  and  our  propaganda  of  education  will  be  effective 
in  so  far  as  it  is  enabled  to  point  to  conspicuous  instances  of 
states  governed  in  their  course  by  noble  moral  principles  and 
when,  indeed,  there  will  exist  such  examples  among  the  na- 
tions as  will  awaken  and  enhance  the  instincts  of  goodwill 
toward  people  and  the  bonds  of  sympathy  among  them. 

What  will  be  the  field  upon  which  our  educators  will  cast 
their  seed? 

(a)  Chiefly,  perhaps,  the  hearts  and  minds  of  the  children. 
Hopes  for  betterment  center  always  on  the  coming  genera- 
tion, for  the  grown-ups  have  already  cast  themselves  into  a 
mould  whose  configuration  they  are  unable  to  change  to  any 
appreciable  extent,  whereas  the  youngsters  are  pliable  in  na- 
ture and  extremely  susceptible  to  influence  from  without. 
The  propaganda  must  begin  in  the  school ;  there  will  the  fu- 
ture leaders  be  trained  to  think  internationally  and  to  see  not 
a  potential  enemy  in  a  citizen  of  a  foreign  state,  but  a  possi- 
ble partner ;  there  will  the  masses  be  instructed  into  a  higher 


PEACE  WITH   JUSTICE  321 

patriotism,  not  indeed  a  patriotism  which  forgets  the  father- 
land in  order  to  remember  humanity,  but  one  which  through 
attachment  to  the  fatherland  promotes  service  for  humanity, 
which  does  not  exclude  interest  in  and  desire  for  the  good 
of  the  other  nations  and  which  finds  place  within  an  atmos- 
phere of  loyalty  to  the  best  and  noblest  interest  of  all  man- 
kind. 

(b)  Business  is  another  field  to  be  cultivated.  The  life 
of  the  peoples  moves  nowadays  on  the  economic  level  prin- 
cipally, and  much  good  may  result  if  a  proper  direction  be 
given  to  the  forces  which  control  the  currents  of  economic 
life.  By  tightening  the  bonds  of  trade  and  commerce  among 
the  nations  we  increase  the  solidarity  between  them,  and  the 
first  great  step  to  let  loose  the  energies  of  economic  co-opera- 
tion will  be  the  establishment  of  universal  free  trade.  Visits 
of  tradespeople  from  one  country  to  another  should  be  en- 
couraged and  actively  promoted  in  order  that  the  people 
should  know  each  other  better,  and  it  is  a  hopeful  sign  that 
labor  has  already  transcended  the  borders  of  nationality  and 
laborers  of  one  country  have  co-operated  and  fraternized 
with  laborers  of  another.  This  necessity  of  securing  the 
members  of  humanity  will  make  the  acquaintance  of  each 
other,  cannot  be  stressed  too  strongly,  for,  as  the  saying 
goes,  to  understand  is  to  forgive,  and  by  such  mutual  ac- 
quaintance many  national  prejudices  will  be  killed.  Further- 
more, the  means  of  communication  between  state  and  state 
become  easier  of  access  with  time,  but  on  the  other  hand  the 
difference  in  languages  necessarily  persists;  however,  the 
genius  of  humanity,  we  may  hope,  will  evolve  an  interna- 
tional language,  a  language  of  all  mankind,  not  as  replacing, 
but  as  supplementing  the  national  languages. 

(c)   The  church  must  take  the  position  of  a  leader  in  the 
movement;  the  old  view  that  religion  concerns  the  fortunes 


322  WAR    OR   A    UNITED    WORLD 

of  the  individual  only,  is  passing  away,  and  we  believe  that 
the  salvation  of  society  is  just  as  imperative  a  task  for  re- 
ligion as  the  salvation  of  the  individual.  And  the  church 
as  the  organization  of  the  forces  of  religion  must  awaken  to 
its  mission  of  sounding  the  clarion  call  of  justice  and  peace 
to  nations  as  well  as  to  individuals. 

(d)  And  finally,  effective  work  must  be  performed  upon 
the  soil  of  officialdom  and  diplomacy.  Our  politicians  and 
diplomats  have  very  often  not  kept  in  time  with  the  beating 
of  the  people's  heart  and  have  made  their  own  personal  quar- 
rels fruitful  causes  for  international  conflict.  Political  and 
diplomatic  action  should  be  given  more  and  more,  if  possible, 
complete  publicity,  in  order  that  such  action  be  brought  into 
closer  touch  with  the  life  of  the  man  in  the  street  and  the 
woman  in  the  home.  And  the  chief  officers  of  the  common- 
wealth must  be  recruited  less  from  privileged  classes  and 
more  from  the  mass,  from  the  real  workers  and  forgers  of 
the  nation's  destinies,  who  naturally  sense  more  directly  the 
good  of  the  country,  who  feel  more  intensely  their  solidarity 
with  the  other  nations,  so  that  the  public  administration  and 
diplomacy  of  the  future  may  be  emancipated  from  the  point 
of  view  heretofore  adopted  which  would  discover  a  foe  in 
a  stranger,  and  a  prey  in  the  neighboring  nation,  an  object 
to  be  feared  and  plotted  against  or  to  be  despised  and  ex- 
ploited in  the  service  of  selfish  ends. 


We  have  said  our  say,  and  we  may  enjoy  for  a  moment 
the  pleasures  of  a  retrospective  glance. 

Is  the  plan  a  Utopian  ideal,  is  it  all  too  good  and  impossi- 
ble ?  Do  we  call  for  more  than  human  nature  can  stand,  for 
heights  loftier  than  the  energies  of  man  can  attain?    No,  we 


PEACE  WITH   JUSTICE  323 

do  not  think  so.  In  the  matter  of  disposition  and  feeling,  we 
are  urging  that  the  consciousness  of  the  nation  realize  what 
the  consciousness  of  the  individual  has  already  made  its  own. 
Not  a  gushing  sympathy,  neither  an  unselfish  self-sacrifice 
for  the  others,  this  is  not  strictly  necessary,  but  essentially  a 
sense  of  solidarity  among  the  nations,  such  as  has  already 
been  realized  among  individuals.  The  man,  individually, 
knows  that  his  interests  are  linked  with  the  interests  of  his 
fellows,  and,  whether  he  loves  his  neighbor  or  not,  he  is  ready 
to  work  with  him  or  divide  his  labor  with  him.  The  savages 
used  to  fight  against  each  other ;  now  individuals  co-operate 
with  each  other  in  order  to  fight,  in  the  struggle  of  life, 
against  Nature.  Competition  has  not  disappeared,  but  it 
has  only  altered  in  form,  and  now  in  villages,  in  towns  and 
in  cities  you  see  men  pursuing  their  daily  labor  at  the  side 
of  their  fellows,  trading  with  them,  forming  partnerships 
together,  and  struggling  in  common  to  earn  their  living  re- 
spectively, competing  with  each  other,  to  be  sure,  and  even 
cruelly,  let  us  admit,  but  not  by  trying  to  destroy  each  other's 
potential  energies  and  innate  capacity  to  produce,  but  each 
by  working  to  make  a  better  success  than  his  rivals,  by  mak- 
ing better  goods  and  selling  them  at  more  reasonable  prices, 
in  effect,  by  outdistancing  his  fellows  in  the  race  for  sub- 
sistence. 

You  will  say  that  in  all  this  the  individual  is  working  for 
his  own  interest,  and  indeed  our  point  is  precisely  this,  that 
the  individual  has  recognized  the  truth  that  to  promote  his 
own  good  he  must  co-operate  with  his  fellows  in  the  promo- 
tion of  their  own.  In  other  words,  the  scope  of  the  personal 
interest  has  so  enlarged  that  it  now  embraces  the  good  of  the 
other  fellow  as  well,  and  the  weaver  upon  Nature's  loom 
perceives  that  to  satisfy  his  own  interest  he  must  take  ac- 
count of  the  general  interest  of  the  community  of  which  he 


324  WAR   OR   A   UNITED    WORLD 

is  a  member.  This  is  exactly  what  solidarity  means.  And 
why  should  it  be  impossible  to  develop  precisely  the  same 
consciousness  among  the  nations,  so  that  competition  among 
them  will  not  be  direct  and  in  terms  of  violent  conflict,  but 
indirect,  in  terms  of  making  the  most  of  Nature,  so  that  a 
given  nation,  pursuing  with  all  its  might  the  fulfillment  of 
its  destiny,  will  see  and  feel  that  its  own  good  is  bound  up 
with  the  good  of  the  other  nations,  and  realize  that,  in  order 
to  have  its  own  interest  fulfilled,  recognition  must  be 
awarded  to  the  sum  of  all  interests?  Solidarity  above  all, 
and  in  every  respect,  this  is  to  be  the  motto  inscribed  on  the 
banner  which  will  lead  the  people  in  the  path  of  progress. 

Change  in  national  characteristics  is  slow  and  difficult, 
but  change  is  not  impossible.  Once  upon  a  timex  and  not  very 
lone  ago,  religious  differences  were  causes  of  internecine 
wars  and  frightful  devastations;  now,  matters  of  religion 
scarcely  play  a  part  in  the  regulation  of  the  relations  be- 
tween states,  and  the  Sheik-ul-Islam's  fierce  call  to  a  "jehad" 
has  fallen  on  avowedly  scornful,  even  deaf,  ears.  We  have 
recognized  that  progress  will  take  its  own  time,  that  we  may 
not  hope  to  stop  all  wars  at  once,  that  our  instruments  are 
not  perfect,  and  that,  after  all,  we  can  aid  only  indirectly  the 
steady  work  of  Nature,  just  as  the  physician  has  similarly 
recognized  with  respect  to  the  treatment  of  individual  ills. 
To  those  who,  losing  their  wits,  and  seized  by  hysterical 
fears,  blunder  as  to  the  issues  and  set  to  getting  rid  of  war  in 
a  mad  hurry,  acting  as  if  war  were  a  bubble  to  be  blown  into 
nothing  with  a  mere  whiff,  we  address  the  solemn  warn- 
ing of  the  ancient  Greeks.  "  2jiei)5e  PQaSeoog"  (make  haste 
slowly)  and  beg  to  remind  them  that  quick  remedies  are 
mostly  quack  remedies.  And,  if  we  are  patient,  we  will  have 
no  reason  to  despair  of  witnessing  better  days.  He  who  ex- 
pects the  achievement  of  the  maximum,  the  ideally  good  and 


PEACE   WITH   JUSTICE  325 

perfect,  will  be  surely  disappointed,  and  bitter  tears  will  shed 
the  person  who  sets  his  heart  upon  catching  the  moon.  But 
he  who,  shutting  his  eyes  to  schemes  of  Utopian  perfection, 
aims  only  at  the  better,  and  from  the  better  moves  on  to  the 
still  better,  who  is  not  discouraged  by  failures,  but  makes  of 
obstacles  stepping  stones  for  further  progress  in  a  path  of 
which  he  does  not  see  the  end,  a  practical  idealist,  in  short, 
will  surely  not  be  disappointed. 


THE  END 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  J^ITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 


e  to  return 

ueJthe  penalty 

the  fourth 

fcEVENTH     DAY 


W::    %&  1944 


SEP  27  low 


^ 


y^i 


icmwtt 


REC'D  LD 


JAN2  7'64-1PN 


MAR2419694^ 


R£CEtV£0 


^^-HAM 


LOAN  DEpt. 


LD  21-100m-12,'43  (8796s 


" 


YD  06715 


\: 


